Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Barbèy


 * 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 06:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Barbèy

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A photographer and, it's claimed, also the voice for Italy's answer to Milli Vanilli.

The article was created (here's the first version) as a paraphrase of this page, whose filename will show that it came first. By academic standards, this is plagiarism, although by the prevailing standards of Wikipedia, I fear it might not be. So let's put the issue of plagiarism aside for the moment.

Barbèy does exist, or anyway his name is attached to stuff you can buy (example). But all the article can produce as sources are two short paragraphs within a single article in a business magazine, the scan on Barbèy's own site of one article in a magazine, and dribs and drabs put out by dealers, who of course are not disinterested. Googling brings bloggery, stuff by Barbèy himself, more sales pitches, and that's all. Though recently attempts have been made to link to Youtube videos as well.

The content of this article is not verifiable. -- Hoary (talk) 08:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.   —Hoary (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   —Hoary (talk) 08:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   —Hoary (talk) 08:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete, it's a close call and the subject might be encyclopaedic but the current article is a marginal COPYVIO (per Hoarys link) and unsupported by WP:RS. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 10:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Lacks notability and reliable sources. --Crusio (talk) 10:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: insufficient 3rd party sources. JamesBurns (talk) 06:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The article needs to be expanded, rather than obliterated. Deletion proposition appears to be initiated with envious bias. 99.151.186.99 (talk) 03:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Allegation of envy aside, how do you propose that it could be expanded? And would you care to specify sources that could be used for the expansion? I note that nobody has started to expand it in any way since I put the AfD notice on it. -- Hoary (talk) 05:05, 17 February 2009 (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.