Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stewart Shining


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Stewart Shining

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I am nominating this article for deletion due to significant concerns regarding its notability and the reliability of its sources. Despite attempts to engage the community for improvements, the article suffers from critical issues as outlined below:

Broken Links or Unavailable Sources: The article relies heavily on sources that are either broken or inaccessible, undermining the verification process. Key examples include:

Sports Illustrated cover, 2001 (link) - broken. "Phuket, Thailand, October 2000" by The Advocate, HighBeam Research, Inc., February 3, 2004 - inaccessible. "By Stewart Shining, for Time Out (February 1996)" from natalieportman.com - archived and unavailable. Other broken or archived sources include links from People Magazine, Rolling Stone, and celebrians.com covering various photo shoots and articles from 1996 through 2008.

Links That Do Not Verify Notability or Credibility: Several sources mention Shining's work but do not provide substantive discussion of his role or influence, failing to establish his notability. This includes articles like "Goddess of the Mediterranean" from CNN/Sports Illustrated and various brief mentions in Rolling Stone that do not analyze his impact in the field.

Overreliance on Primary Sources: The article predominantly uses primary sources, such as stewartshining.com and celebrians.com, which may introduce bias. These sources largely showcase the subject’s work without any critical analysis or third-party perspective, failing to meet the standards for reliable, independent verification of content.  Misrepresentation of Roles or Inaccurate Information: The article includes claims not supported by reliable secondary sources, such as the subject's alleged significant roles with non-profits and major editorial contributions. For instance, a Wall Street Journal article titled "New Optimism for AIDS Activist" and information from Photo District News do not confirm his reported roles, creating potential misinformation.

Given the extensive reliance on problematic sources, combined with a significant lack of independent and reliable secondary coverage, the subject's notability cannot be adequately verified. Therefore, I recommend a discussion on whether this article should be retained, heavily edited, or deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitsoukorussie (talk • contribs) 05:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 29.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 05:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep. Offline sources are just as valid as online ones, and  was able to find archived versions of many of the previous broken links. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1221337540  Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep he is a notable photographer and has contributed to multiple notable publications. We don't delete articles because of dead links or offline sources. The WSJ article and the Rapid City Journal articles provide significant coverage about him and provide biographical details about his life. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Photography,  and New York. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep -- The sources already in the article much, much more than satisfy the GNG. Extraordinarily misguided nomination. Central and Adams (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable and well sourced. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep as pass notability and there's nothing wrong with offline sources. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:05, 2 May 2024 (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.