Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Mowatt (second nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Paul Mowatt
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Apparently a photographer, but there's no assertion of notability. Googling brings up Wikipedia, commercial and other Wikipedia scrapes, genealogical stuff, and merely the most minor of references.

Prodded on 19 July; prod removed (with an indignant edit summary) three days later; nominated for first AfD on 28 July; debate started up; ended with the extraordinary non-explanation Temporary keep per OTRS Ticket # 2007072910013442 on 30 July. I'm not a party to the OTRS mumbo jumbo and have no idea of what happened.

I see two kinds of unconvincingly claimed notability here:

First, photographic. Actually the article claims nothing, and googling hasn't helped. Somebody describing herself as related to a gallery "in DC" claimed in my talk page that Mowatt was a noteworthy photographer, but hasn't responded to my invitation to provide evidence. (This person in/of/from DC uses bt.com and has an interesting contributions list.)

Second, genealogical. Mowatt may not be in WP for his own merits, but as the ex-husband and father of a total of three people in line for the British throne. But if anyone merits an article merely by paternity and/or marriage (an idea that I strongly oppose), surely those to whom they're related must themselves be notable. These three are not: the three articles about them were deleted as a result of this AfD.

So there seems to be nothing here. (Which is a pity, as I always like to read of new photographers.) -- Hoary 06:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Asked and answered; you can't keep coming back to AfD if you don't like the result! --AlisonW 09:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Your comment puzzles me. The original proposal to delete was answered in various ways, a number of them variations on "delete". Had it ended in "Keep" it would indeed be odd to return to AfD. However, it didn't end in keep; it instead was cut short and plunged into mystery. (Moreover, "keep coming back to AfD" seems rather harsh a description for a second AfD.) -- Hoary 14:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hoary, Paul Mowatt notability rests on his photograhic merits but notability is not shown here. I'd like to see feature articles that have been written about his work which would demonstrate that he's notable enough for people to write about him but I can't find any. It's possible of course that he prefers to keep a low profile, which would be understandable, but the quid pro quo must be that nobody outside the people through who he sells his work know of him. So I lean to delete.  The OTRS thing means there has been email correspondence presumably about the first AfD though it must be unusual that it ends in an article being kept!  --Malcolmxl5 09:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The cryptic comment in the talk page says "temporary keep", whatever "temporary" might mean. -- Hoary 14:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's baffling. --Malcolmxl5 16:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems that 'temporary' meant '7 days'. --Malcolmxl5 18:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - The royalty angle is a stretch... formerly married, quite a bit down the aristocratic lines anyway. The assertion of notability from photography work is sorely unconvincing.  /Blaxthos 11:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - being married to a magnificently minor royal is no claim to encyclopedic notability, and his photographic work does not appear important enough. Moreschi Talk 11:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - No evidence in the article or elsewhere on the 'net of notability. Marriage and paternity this far down the royal line may get a mention in the gossip pages of Hello! or OK! but not in an encyclopaedia.  WebHamste r  12:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete NN person (as per above) Marcus22 15:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable individual.  Majorly  (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Marriage doesn't confer notability, and none is claimed or cited for the photography. Accounting4Taste 16:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a considerable ammount of coverage of him but every one I looked at seems to mention him just as the "photographer husband of Marina Ogilvy" or something to that effect. I'm not really sure this is non-trivial coverage. This does reveal a new tactic for if your pet article is nominated for AFD though... just e-mail OTRS to get it kept. --W.marsh 16:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently Messedrocker closed it only because told him to. That user hasn't edited in 1.5 months, and apparently isn't even OTRS anymore. --W.marsh 16:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And I listened to him because I figured he knew something I didn't and that he really knew what he was talking about. MessedRocker (talk) 16:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - completely fails all notability tests. -- Orange Mike 18:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions.   —David Eppstein 18:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Either get credible photographic information up about him, as I think he qualifies but can't find any, or delete it. I did try finding him in print sources and asked photographers--one person is pretty sure he's a fashion photographer and has done some major shoots, but couldn't find any confirmation.  "I think he qualifies" and "pretty sure" doesn't work for an article.  If someone can source this information in print or on line and wishes this article kept for it, give me the references, and, as usual, I will be glad to write the article to sink Hoary's ship.  KP Botany 18:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So the fact that you can't actually find anything beyond "pretty sure" isn't an indicator in its own right?  WebHamste r  19:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I think it probably is. But I think I've seen a high fashion spread of his in W or Italian Vogue, which would put him in the big leagues without necessarily making it the case that small time American fashion photographers have heard of him or remember his name.   I'm also busy with my professional life and haven't researched my fashion stacks.  If I do find a spread by him in either I will restart the article myself, as both W and Italian Vogue will give a bio with other sources that can all be used.  KP Botany 21:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. The marriage does not make him notable and there appears to be a dearth of sources regarding his photographic career. If someone adds sources I will reconsider. Nuttah68 10:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect to his ex-wife. Not notable as a photographer. He would have certainly been automatically notable under the rejected WP:ROYAL and is sufficiently covered in the wife's article. Johnbod 14:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, the article about his ex-wife was deleted some weeks ago iirc. There's a closed AfD somewhere here. --Malcolmxl5 20:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete a photographer with high connections and no notable entries? Something doesn't look right. Modernist 02:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.