Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rod Evans (photographer)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 03:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Rod Evans (photographer)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Aside from the promotional issues related to the article -- not necessarily a reason for deletion -- this is an article on a commerical photographer with little evidence of notability beyond that of a working photographer, per WP:CREATIVE. No 3rd party sources beyond the trivial  freshacconci  talk talk  20:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.   — freshacconci  talk talk  20:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.   — freshacconci  talk talk  20:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep. Rod Evans is considered a Creative professional as stated by Notability (people). He is well known in his field by peers and students, has been featured in a number of magazines and books, received multiple awards and featured in a story which received a Regional Emmy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imagesintern (talk • contribs) 20:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I have to ask: do you work for Rod Evans? One of his websites is called http://www.evansimages.com/ and your username is Imagesintern. If this is the case, there is a conflict of interest that should be addressed.  freshacconci  talk talk  20:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Volunteering at the studio for the week, have been compiling information for a wiki page for a while. Regardless of my location or my username, he is notable in his field. The sources are solid, he's been featured in a number of books and magazines, and has spoken all over the country at photography conventions. What can I do to improve the page? It is obviously still under construction, but I will take any suggestions.--Imagesintern (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest posting a message at the talk page for WikiProject History of photography to find editors who may be willing to do some clean-up. You can also try Article Rescue Squadron. These deletion discussions last 5 days. If the article improves and notability is established, an adminstrator can decide to keep the article.  freshacconci  talk talk  21:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll try that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imagesintern (talk • contribs) 21:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * delete let me count the nots: Not notable, not verifiable, not covered by any reliable sources. More nots: Not myspace, not a yellow pages and not advertising.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how you say this is not notable or verifiable. In the realm of photographers, especially senior photographers, he is notable. And how is this not verifiable? There are sources referencing magazines, books, TV spots, and interviews for which he has participated. Not MySpace?  confused...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imagesintern (talk • contribs) 21:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * *cmt i eagerly await your supply of reliable sources that demonstrate your currently unsupported assertions as true.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't seem encyclopedic, or especially noteworthy..Modernist (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:59, 17 January 2009 (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.