Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas W.P. Slatin


 * 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. I find the delete arguments, particularly from Bearcat, to be much stronger than those arguing for keep. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Thomas W.P. Slatin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a writer and photographer, which makes no strong claim of notability under our inclusion standards for writers or photographers and cites no evidence of reliable source coverage to get him over WP:GNG. This literally just states that he exists and then includes a small amount of information about his childhood, but then just ends without saying even one thing about his career that could even be measured against our notability standards for that career -- and its references are all primary sources that do not support notability at all, such as his own self-published website, pieces of his own writing about other things, and the self-published website of a non-notable award that doesn't constitute a free notability pass -- and even the one thing that looks like a more reliable source on the surface (Broadway World) is actually still a press release. As always, Wikipedia is not a free advertising platform on which every creative professional is automatically entitled to have a profile just because he exists -- but neither the content nor the sourcing here is suggesting any reason why he's notable enough. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. No evidence of notability whatsoever. Completely failing WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Please see updates since the preceding commentary on this page.. Thomas Slatin’s photography was published in a book which has received New York Times coverage. He is the son of Dr. Harvey L. Slatin. Dreamhost does have a stand alone company on Wikipedia, and that would make the company who offered the award « Dreamiest website of the year » notable. If an article stands on Wikipedia then that company passed notability, so I would think any award offered by a notable company would be of significance and establish notability for the award being notable in addition to the recipients. His writings are published. New York Times and many others found the book in which his photography is mentioned, worthy of coverage, and having ones photography appear in a notable book which has received tremendous media coverage goes beyond a trivial mention. Book illustrations are a significant part of books (of course). Also in the book which received New York Times reviee coverage, his photography is published, not just mentioned. Wouldn’t that assist in satisfying notability requirements in terms of his photography work having been published in a book which is repoed by a major book distributor with major, credible media source coverage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ideaanalyst (talk • contribs)
 * Firstly, the notability or non-notability of an award is not a question of "the organization or company that presents the award has a Wikipedia article about it as an organization or company" — it is a question of "media independent of the organization's own self-published website pay direct attention to the granting of the award as news in its own right". An Academy Award confers notability on an actor or actress because media report the Academy Awards as news, not just because the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences happens to have a Wikipedia article, and a Pulitzer Prize confers notability on a writer because media report the Pulitzer as news, not just because the Pulitzer Prize has a website. There are lots of other small-fry awards that actors or writers can win that are not notable enough, or covered by the media enough, to make a writer or actor notable for winning them — not every award that exists constitutes a notability freebie in and of itself, because the notability test for winning an award is the depth and range of media coverage that is or is not devoted to reporting the granting of that award as news.
 * Secondly, notability is not inherited. The identity of his father is irrelevant either way to the question of notability: if a person does not have a strong or properly sourced notability claim in his own right for his own standalone accomplishments, then he does not earn an inclusion freebie just for having a notable father.
 * And thirdly, having his work appear in a book that got reviewed by the media is not a notability criterion either — people do not get inclusion freebies just for having their work appear in anthologies or as illustrations in other people's books, people get Wikipedia articles by having their work personally singled out for dedicated media attention about their work itself. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I do understand the notability is not inheirited. In his work as a writer, he has been published (not self published in these cases) in currentphotographer.com, photographytricks.com, emulsive.com, among a couple others and those are sites who published his work as a writer due to his expertise as a master photographer, not self published sites. His photography work is sold through canva.com. In regards to dreamhost, it is an award winning platform to which I believe I read 600,000 websites/blogs exist. Dreamhost is a highly viewed platform and they published the news of their winners each year, being one site of a handful who won in 2016, only one winner for Dreamiest website and announced on dreamhost (placing higher than thousands of sites) that seems notable. I understand each element in itself may not represent notability but as for all deemed relevant and notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, it is looking at the full picture of combined sources:achievements correct? A published writer (in aforementioned sites), published photographer and the award where there are hundreds of thousands of sites belonging to the Dreamhost website so winning Dreamiest site, comprised with his other achievements in publishing and maintaining neutrality it represents significance and a unique collective set of achievements which are measureable/tangible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ideaanalyst (talk • contribs) 04:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete – At this time. Just not over the bar yet with regards to being “encyclopedia” notable. Not enough coverage.  In fact really none from secondary – independent – reliable source.  Do hope to read about him here someday.  But just has not received the recognition yet to be included. ShoesssS Talk 15:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - This person has accomplished more than many who have been granted formal recognition in the press. For this reason alone, their accomplishments far outweigh the fact that there has not yet been a press mention, when clearly there should have been by this point.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:110D:43FB:E9D2:9393:2BC2:4F1C (talk) 00:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, there's no such thing on Wikipedia as "notable despite the lack of a press mention" — press coverage is the definition of notability, so it's inherently impossible for a person who doesn't have it to be more notable than a person who does. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 17 July 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.