Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sebastian Faena


 * 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. Monty 845  20:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Sebastian Faena

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not show ample notability. He has made 1 film and had commercial work published in 3 magazines without anyone having been cited talking about the work or the film. This article was nominated for deletion based on having no refs when first created and template was removed without comment by original author. Lopifalko (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Despite the flurry of activity that has taken place since this AfD was posted, the article still only shows that he has been employed by magazines, and such employment obviously involves photographing celebrities, nothing noteworthy about that in itself. The article does not show why he has been influential within his field. He has not been recognised by other reliable sources. -Lopifalko (talk)


 * Comment. He doesn't have to be shown to be influential within his field. Evidence for influence is sufficient to show notability but not necessary for it. You're right, though: much of the article is little more than name-dropping. Still, one has to concede that these celeb names have many people awestruck. (Not me.) &para; I do have a soft spot for this article thanks to the one sentence "Nun Head" was controversial because it showed models potrayed [sic] as nuns being nude and having lesbian sexual affairs: surely it takes photographic skills (or anyway art direction skills) to show that nude women are nuns and that their frolics are affairs, not just one-night-stands. (Here ["NSFW"] are some of these nunly pics.) &para; Even when (seemingly) provided, sourcing seems dodgy: wondering how one web page whose title doesn't mention Faena would say that he'd photographed campaigns for seven brands, I took a look, and sure enough it only says he photographed one of these. -- Hoary (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 09:09, 23 January 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.