Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomas van Houtryve


 * 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) NorthAmerica1000 16:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Tomas van Houtryve

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG John from Idegon (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This was wrongly framed. The article should be speedy deleted for copyvio as it is plagiarized from here: http://viiphoto.com/author/tomas-van-houtryve/ Jytdog (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I checked the source of which you accusing me of violating, its not a copyvio, besides I added another ref. Speaking of GNG, is it OK to cite references from magazines since the photographers work is there, but not online?--Mishae (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Simply having work published does not make a photog notable. you need reviews in reliable sources or evidence of notable awards, again from reliable sources. John from Idegon (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * O.K. I added a reliable source The Indianapolis Star, plus National Geograhic which is I think is reliable per our reliable sources about magazines.--Mishae (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Reference from National Geographic is not from the magazine, but from a website and is not coverage in detail which is required of references used to show notability. The Indianapolis Star reference is simply a photo accredited to him--again nothing to notability. Simply being published does not give notability to a photographer any more than it does to an author. John from Idegon (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * leaning towards keep - lots of awards - http://www.tomasvanhoutryve.com/biography.html Mosfetfaser (talk) 08:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note, someone claiming to be van Houtryve's assistant has requested at BLPN that the article be deleted. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC).
 * Keep. If he's good enough for VII, he's certainly good enough for Wikipedia. No, wait, that's not a notability criterion! All right then, in 2010 he got first place in PoYI's Freelance/Agency Photographer of the Year. Haven't heard of PoYI? It's run by an institute that's part of the University of Missouri. When Van Houtryve won the award, he thereby outclassed Marcus Bleasdale (third place). (Which of course makes photography sound like a cycling race or similar. Idiotic -- but you can't accuse photographers of dressing up like salesgirls, or [aside from a small minority exemplified by Dash Snow] of doping.) Incidentally, the request, mentioned above, to delete the page is now here. The request asserts that the biographee doesn't want a page, but doesn't start to explain why. (I'd wildly guess that it's because the article is a mess and there's not much hope for significant improvement; after all, most other WP articles about documentary photographers are perfunctory, or worse.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep because of the awards and media coverage. One of the complaints voiced above is that the biography is a copyright violation of the VII article, but I compared the current biography [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tomas_van_Houtryve&oldid=567864821 and the very first instance of it] with the VII piece as seen currently and the same VII piece as archived on March 1, eight days prior to the creation of the Wikipedia biography. I see no copyright violation between any of these four versions. Binksternet (talk) 04:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Update. The article now has added drones. -- Hoary (talk) 07:25, 21 March 2014 (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.