Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Ballen


 * 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 no consensus to delete, but adding a tag for references... normally I wouldn't check as closer, but there do seem to be a lot of reliable sources on this guy, they just aren't cited. W.marsh 17:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Roger Ballen
Was PRODded as "notability", but the article asserts a positive shedload thereof. It might all be trumped-stuff of course, adn there are no links. Just the sort of thing that a keen AfDer might want to dig around for... -Splash - tk 22:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The notability seems justified just by a cursory google -- press coverage, international exhibition of works, notable show called Outland. The article needs cleanup & sourcing. --Dhartung | Talk 23:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Weak Keep (Updated by Chris Kreider 23:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)) - Article makes assertion of notability. With google hits, appears could be valid.  In this case, I would rather err on the side of caution and not delete the contribution.  Chris Kreider 23:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Whilst I've not looked into this save very briefly, it is not enough to survive AfD to make a mere assertion of notability. The purpose of AfD is to see if these appearances are valid or not; to weight whether they are notable or not. Noone's seeking a speedy deletion, nor even a 5-day PROD here. AfD is instead being asked to do some thorough (admittedly fairly heavy) legwork and reach a viable decision. -Splash - tk 23:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Point taken, thank you for bringing that to my attention. I will try to do alittle more work to back up my nominatin but it still stands.  I think if it comes to AFD, it should be analyzed for every possible reason to keep it or to delete it.  From what I read, it appears as thhough this article adds value to wikipedia and hence my keep vote.  After reading your comment, I do agree and will downgrade my nomination to a weak keep.  Chris Kreider 23:31, 29 October 2006 (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.