Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Giovinco


 * 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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Steve Giovinco

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A few promotional exhibition write ups and a personal bio page. Subject doesn't appear to be a particularly notable photographer. I am not finding via searching or seeing something that would pass WP:ARTIST, no assertion he has won any notable awards or that his work is exceptional or any different from the thousands of other photographers that have their pictures in exhibitions. Off2riorob (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Comment. Given the use within Wikipedia of the concept of "notability", he indeed "doesn't appear to be a particularly notable photographer". Perhaps a total of just a dozen or so living photographers obviously do, though we might add two or three dozen more via careful (and tedious) searching in web pages about museum collections. (As for the question of whether he's notable in the normal sense, I'm not qualified to judge, and of course WP doesn't care.) &para; After careful editing, the article now says very little, but what it does say is scrupulously sourced. This is in marked contrast with the flatus that's typical of AfD (see Kim Jew as an example). My own gut feeling is "slightly informative, sourced, non-promotional, and harmless; therefore keep". I haven't yet looked in any of the commentary on paper that's been proffered; perhaps there's more in it too. -- Hoary (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2011 (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.