Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Shields


 * 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. The issue here is whether relatively trivial coverage for a number of different activities adds up to notability, and the consensus is that it does not. JohnCD (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Tyler Shields

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Photographer with "no formal training" who has been involved in a series of events which have made the news, but not due to the quality of his photographs. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - A notable person doesn't have to have formal training to be notable. The individual also "set a world record by staying awake for 968 consecutive hours while being observed 24 hours a day by a team of friends acting as monitors.", which is referenced and notable, despite the fact that Guinness didn't confirm it because of safety concerns regarding this type of activity. Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - The person also has a listing at IMDB -, which typically doesn't list unnoteworthy people. Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * IMDB simply lists credits in film, television, and video productions. A great many of the people listed in IMDB would fail our notability guidelines. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - couple of minor controversies, limited photographic notability. Off2riorob (talk) 15:58, 5 September 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) 00:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment – Here's more data that establishes notability for the topic's inclusion on Wikipedia, both from AOL News:
 * "Ultimate All-Nighter: Man Tries to Stay Awake 40 Days", AOLnews.com, October 23, 2010.
 * Muessig, Ben. "Man Who Stayed Awake for 40 Days Looks Back With Open Eyes", AOLnews.com, November 2, 2010.
 * The data is noteworthy per the individual being a performance artist. Also note that the nominator for deletion of this article removed this data from the article recently, under the rationale (verbatim) in the edit summary that "unconfirmed claim of world record is not a world record", which doesn't qualify removal of the data, because in part, the information is not about an actual world record, just a claim of one. The data serves to further establish notability for the topic and is worthy of inclusion as content within the article, and it seems inappropriate for it to be deleted by an individual whom also nominated it to AfD and wants to have the entire article deleted while it is being worked on by others to improve it and establish notability for the topic. Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete No reliable, significant references about him doing his profession. IMDB is considered not a reliable reference.  Most Guinness World records are fluff and that doesn't mean the person gets an article. Bgwhite (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable by our standards--a few passing mentions and news items is not enough. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep His exhibits that get coverage. Here is one link where they mention him and quote him as well.  You can also find ample coverage of him and his work at  That's two, so no sense digging through the rest of the Google news results for others, although I'm sure they are out there.   D r e a m Focus  02:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.popeater.com/2010/02/20/tyler-shields-the-new-face-of-celebrity-photography/ shows ample coverage of him personally.  D r e a m Focus  12:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * delete fails WP:BIO . Coverage is mainly about him taking photos of notable people, nothing in-depth about him. LibStar (talk) 11:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 18:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment – The topic actually passes notability guidelines per WP:BIO, notability for people, specifically the section WP:BASIC, “A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.” If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.” The topic passes WP:BIO, section WP:BASIC due to the availability of multiple independent sources which demonstrate notability and in the manner of which those sources are not comprised of trivial coverage. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * note to closing admin this user tends to recycle identical statements in other AfDs., , .  LibStar (talk) 02:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * if one tries to insist on following policy, there are a limited number of ways to say it. If one wishes to make up ad hoc policy on one's own, only then  is it possible to be more creative. (This does not mean I agree with Northamerica's position on this particular article, necessarily) but your's is an unfair criticism, unless you wish to say the argument is being applied to situation where it is totally irrelevant -- and that  does not seem to be the case here.   DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * flooding various AfDs with text that is as easy as clicking on WP:BIO is not necessary. LibStar (talk) 02:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * if the policy is being ignored, and ones wishes to say it needs to be followed, it would seem to be quite necessary  DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note he did comment specifically on this AFD at the top of the AFD. This wasn't a mindless vote spam, this was someone stating their case in three places, where the same situation seemed to be happening.   D r e a m Focus  03:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment – My discussions in the page are about the article this AfD is based upon, not other AfD discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Yes, it meets the GNG, but there are other policies to take account of, such as NOT TABLOID. My own position from the first has been that if a person is considered to be notable, they have to be notable for something, and I do not think this is the case; I've said as much for similar "celebrities". This is the sort of situation which leaves me less than enchanted with the real applicability of the GNG.  But how to balance alternative policies   is always going to be a matter of judgment. I could have instead of saying this closed the AfD , with reliance upon my own judgment of how to balance. But I do not think any admin is entitled to do that when the community is unsure. It would be a supervote, and I don't approve of them even when they express my own opinion.    DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't he famous for his artwork? That many famous people don't volunteer to do art exhibits with him if he wasn't a notable artist.  Its not some random guy out of nowhere who never did anything called them all up and said hey, I want you to dress up like a vampire for me, and I want 20 of you to give me some of your blood to make an art exhibit with it, and they all said sure, why not.  This was someone who was known for his art before hand.   D r e a m Focus  03:03, 22 September 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.