Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Stuart (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 keep. The problems noted by the early "delete" !voters (sourcing and copyvio) appear to have been addressed. Though I would feel better if some of those editors had revisited the discussion to confirm or retract their opinions in the light of the current state of the article, the keepers seem to have the stronger policy-based arguments with regard to the revised article. Deor (talk) 12:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Roy Stuart (photographer)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced biography of a non-notable photographer. Probably an autobiography. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook  03:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook  03:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete No independent sourcing. No GNews hits. Edward321 (talk) 03:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete No independent sourcing. There is a copyright problem also - this writer from France where the person the story is written about lives - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/82.123.205.62 - wrote on this wiki - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roy_Stuart_%28photographer%29&diff=287319637&oldid=278788093 the exact same story from  -  http://www.roystuart.net/#!about/c13qh - Mosfetfaser (talk) 04:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. When you realize that a long-established article violates copyright, it can be a good idea to see whether the copyright material was added later, and if so, to revert the article to the state it was in before the addition. (This process took me less than five minutes for this article.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. With one more minute, I'd have remembered to do something else. It occurred to me later, but by then Cyberbot I had beaten me to it. - Hoary (talk) 12:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete The whole thing has been blanked due to copyright issues.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have turned the article back to its (admittedly crappy) 2009 state. -- Hoary (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable photographer regardless of the current condition of the article. Poor citation/copyvio in the article is an argument to improve the article, not to delete the article and No independent sourcing is not a valid argument here. Any copyright or COI issues should be resolved, obviously. It shouldn't be an autobio. As a retrospective of their career, this photographer has 5 four-pound books from a major independent publisher of art books. Mentioned or work featured in The Focal Encyclopedia of Photography (as well as The Concise Focal Encyclopedia of Photography), The Naked and the Lens: A Guide to Nude Photography, The Beginner's Guide to Photographing Nudes, Forms of Desire from St.Martin's Press, etc. Maybe there's some prudishness going on because this photographer deals in erotic imagery, but the subject is clearly not an unknown. Keep and fix the article.__ E L A Q U E A T E  15:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The subject receives precisely one sentence in the first two sources, they only get one clause worth of coverage in the others. These trivial passing mentions do not show notability, they show quite the opposite. Edward321 (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. They show quite the opposite. No they don't. Yes, they're compatible with the opposite. This doesn't mean that they show the opposite. -- Hoary (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Do not give credence to lies in one's haste to shine a light on the truth. Even if there were such a thing as an "opposite" to notability, we at WP would not need to be concerned with it until it entered policy. Going over the top comes a lot quicker when only assertions are available. Mere "absence" lacks the desired rhetorical punch, and since there are no facts on which to expand the argument, the pure invention of "opposite" must be deployed. Anarchangel (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment He has an entry in the curatorial reference work Dictionary of erotic artists, multiple articles in french magazines, etc. Even setting aside any popular press considerations, WP:CREATIVE notability has been directly met with a collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book. The Taschen books are not self-publishing and were put together by an editor for Taschen. His body of work was the subject of a retrospective book more than four times, even if you discount every other mention anywhere else. He meets the basic demands of creative professional notability (which is not the same as general fame).__ E L A Q U E A T E  15:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Elaqueate. Like his stuff or not, he's a notable pornophotographer. Try for example "Roy Stuart clichés x (Libération): "Pour les quelque 250 000 possesseurs des trois volumes de Roy Stuart publiés par Taschen,...." That averages to 80 thou per title, and this is about forty times the average print run for a photobook. And there's "Nos aînés sont merveilleux - Roy Stuart, photographe explicite" (Brain), "Roy Stuart" (arte.tv), "« Glympstorys » : le nouvel opus du controversé Roy Stuart aux éditions Skylight" (Actuphoto), and plenty more. -- Hoary (talk) 12:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Because 6 books of photography and 1 set of postcards published by a major mainstream publisher; another book with another publisher; written and directed 3 films; articles in GQ and Arte as refs. -Lopifalko (talk)
 * Comment. And if you're flagging, here's more to perk you up: "Les filles vues par ... Roy Stuart" (Lui, NSFW). - Hoary (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  19:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete He's certainly a working photographer, but so are hundreds of thousands - all with a similar level of coverage. In a field like photography this degree of press is standard, not exceptional. There is no significant coverage that justifies notability. No independent sourcing. TheFrontDeskMust (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia, brand new contributor! (Fast work, discovering AfD on your very first day as contributor.) &para; Stuart is certainly a working photographer, and so are hundreds of thousands -- few with a similar level of exposure (haw haw). How many others get multiple volumes from the decidedly commercial outfit Taschen, hmm? &para; You want more about him? "Tout ce que vous avez toujours voulu savoir sur la représentation du sexe sans jamais oser le demander à Roy Stuart", and "Roy Stuart au Studio Art and You". -- Hoary (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Y'all have missed the full article review of "Roy Stuart III" at, I've also found indications although not definitive that volumes 1 and 3 received reviews in Playboy. (As in, Amazon quotes those reviews.)  Putting aside the plausible but unproven references at Playboy, the Salon reference and the other links provided reach WP:GNG. --j⚛e deckertalk 04:01, 11 August 2014 (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.