Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siegfried Hansen (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. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 11:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Siegfried Hansen (photographer)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article was deleted because of missing relevance in the German Wikipedia. Here is the deletion log: : https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:L%C3%B6schkandidaten/30._August_2018#Siegfried_Hansen_(gel%C3%B6scht) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.182.87.121 (talk) 11:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note Cleanuped this AfD Hhkohh (talk) 11:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Procedural close the article has problems (three sources into the ref list I found a Blogspot source), but there is somewhat reasonable independent coverage available here, here, here and here. The nomination does not give a reason for deletion (Deletions on other-language wikis are not reasons here), so this is perhaps also a procedural close. One might ask why there is a sudden need to delete the article in two different wikis. The German deletion was two weeks ago. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. No valid argument clearly supplied for deletion. One argument can, however, be inferred: "Over on de:WP, Hansen was judged not to merit an encyclopedia entry (and not merely an entry in German), QED." I've read Google's English quasi-translation of the discussion, and it's not so garbled that I can't get the gist of it. I'm not convinced. A lot of it is along the lines of: "He's less notable than are various [unspecified] photographers whose articles have been deleted." Even if this were true, it would be invalid here: see WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Well, is he notable? There are chapters devoted to him in books from publishers of some merit; therefore yes he is notable. -- Hoary (talk) 05:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. No valid argument supplied for deletion and subject satisfies notability: a member of In-Public; 2 monographs; group exhibitions in notable venues (Deichtorhallen, Museum of Warsaw and Museo di Roma in Trastevere) and on various continents; solo exhibitions (at venues unknown to me or to Wikipedia); and inclusion in a number of survey publications on street photography including Street Photography Now. Coverage in WP:RS is not overwhelming but is ample: Die Zeit, Aesthetica, and HuffPost. The German Wikipedia deletion process appears to be a discussion rather than a vote. The discussion reads via translation to be full of sarcasm, as though something has wound people up the wrong way, presumably the subject's having edited the article themselves (under their own name). I cannot get behind reasoning such as this used in that discussion: "As a photo artist you should have a solo exhibition about every 18-24 months, at least a handful distributed to the country or Europe." (translation). -Lopifalko (talk) 07:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. The exhibition in the Deichtorhallen was not a relevant group exhibition but a mass exhibition with more than 50 photographers. The exhibitions in Cardiff, Berlin, London, Warsaw are not relevant exhibitions, but lobby and marketing exhibitions of the group Streetphotography now on the respective book publications. Hansen has also no solo exhibition in a relevant museum or in a non-private gallery. The groups in which Hansen is represented are not really relevant groups in the sense of art, but rather communities of interest. There is no explicit review of Hansen's work by an expert. The mentions in the magazines are more like his own work shows than expertises on his works. Both the German and the English Wikipedia entry were largely written by the artist himself. A lot of quantity, little quality. Lots of filler, little really relevant! German Wikipedia has consequently deleted the article, because even in Germany they do not see Hansen as an encyclopaedically relevant artist. Wikipedia is not a business directory. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we should finally be aware of that and increase the quality and the standard and not make a phonebook out of it. --93.131.28.133 (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The contributions of the AfD nominator, 77.182.87.121 (total so far: 3, all related to Siegfried Hansen (photographer)); the contributions of 93.131.28.133 (author of the comment immediately above) (total so far: 1, the comment immediately above): WHOIS shows that both IP numbers belong to Telefonica Deutschland GmbH -- whose IP numbers were also active in the de:WP discussion. Are we having a discussion with one anonymous person here, or does Hansen just happen to be of extraordinary interest to anonymous customers of Telefonica Deutschland GmbH? -- Hoary (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Likely, but I might note that Telephonica Deutschland made "7.3 Billion euros" in 2017 (operating from this tiny headquarters), so they for sure have a few million customers.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment on the paragraph above by the Telefonica Deutschland GmbH customer (TDC): Yes, Hansen's article started out as written by Hansen. Here it is in the final form in which Hansen wrote it (with very minor changes by others). Note three points about this. First, however wrong it was for Hansen to have written it, it's not the cringeworthy, self-congratulatory tosh that's normally disgorged by autobiographers, but instead pretty sober. Secondly, it has been extensively reworked since (primarily by Lopifalko). Thirdly, while strongly discouraged, autobiography is not one of the reasons for deletion. &para; TDC's understanding of the word relevant and my own appear to be different. Or maybe the problem is that they're saying that this or that is "not relevant" without saying what it's not relevant to. Anyway, any exhibition by Hansen, no matter how trivial, is relevant to Hansen. This of course doesn't mean that it's necessarily worth mentioning in an article about Hansen. If Hansen's work appears in an exhibition of work by fifty or more photographers then it needn't and probably shouldn't be mentioned. (There are imaginable exceptions, such as if we have reviews saying that Hansen's work stood out among the rest.) &para; TDC says that "The exhibitions in Cardiff, Berlin, London, Warsaw are [...] lobby and marketing exhibitions [...]". Evidence for this claim, please. &para; TDC says "Hansen has also no solo exhibition in a relevant museum". Has he or has he not had a solo exhibition at Palais für aktuelle Kunst? If he did have one, we should be told just what it is that's irrelevant to this museum. -- Hoary (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment to Hoary. I can understand that Lopifalko is offended in his vanity when the article is deleted. After all, he worked a lot on it. And it's really touching that you are committed to it. But your commitment doesn't make the article more relevant. There seems to be other interests than the quality of Wikipedia, whichever. The Palais für aktuelle Kunst is completely meaningless in Germany.--77.181.14.177 (talk) 05:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment to Hoary.It is not important which phone provider you are with, but what you have to say and what you do for the quality of Wikipedia.--89.204.153.237 (talk) 07:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment to TDC: I'm touched to read that you're touched! However, you really need to think twice before accusing other users of vanity. Now, the "relevance" of this article on Hansen: relevance to what? And this museum that you claim is "completely meaningless in Germany": the de:WP article about it has just had its tenth birthday; are you planning to take it as well to WP:Löschkandidaten (AfD)? (I note that the museum is so meaningless that, for example, a change of its chairman is a news story at sh:z; perhaps sh:z too is completely meaningless in Germany.) &para; You are right; what you contribute is more important than which ISP you are using. But see Sock puppetry. -- Hoary (talk) 07:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment to Hoary: Well, Germany apparently has a higher quality standard. Well, then keep the article and use Wikipedia as yellow page :-) I am out. Bye. --77.181.14.177 (talk) 10:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per independent coverage. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Hansen listed as #3 in the "12 Best Street Photographers In The World Right Now!" by the Huffington Post.--Jburlinson (talk) 01:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you find this article, Jburlinson? I looked, and I can't find it. (The Wayback Machine doesn't have anything for this URL.) I see a lot of articles with related titles at huffingtonpost.com, and I have to say that they don't impress me. Hansen does get an (appreciative) mention here, but this is all that Google finds for me at this website. -- Hoary (talk) 04:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It is strange that the article appears to be gone from HuffPost. There is a video of the article here on Vimeo. Note the URL provided there (huffingtonpost.com/entry/10-best-street-photographers-in-the-world-right-now_us_59efbb6de4b00a4ce5a2225d) claims 10 best in the URL but 12 best in the title. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:12, 23 October 2018 (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.