Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Thomas W.P. Slatin

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Thomas W.P. Slatin


This page was deleted 5 months ago here Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_W.P._Slatin. I agree with the reasoning and decision there. This Draft page as also been declined and rejected (see page history) but those AfC comments have been removed. The MSN source looks promising but it is just a little blurb about a crowdsourced contributor. The best profile here is from what looks like a blog. Legacypac (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Enough is enough. This draft was created immediately after the article was deleted and has been declined or rejected three times, and isn't likely to be ready for comparison against the deleted article, and it will be necessary to be better than the deleted article in order to be accepted.  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Draft namespace used to circumvent regular deletion discussion. jni (delete)...just not interested 08:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

What others have said, in support of KEEPING this article...

"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?"

"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."

The following comments constitutes harassment: This page was deleted 5 months ago here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_W.P._Slatin. I agree with the reasoning and decision there. This Draft page as also been declined and rejected (see page history) but those AfC comments have been removed. The MSN source looks promising but it is just a little blurb about a crowdsourced contributor. The best profile here is from what looks like a blog. Legacypac (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - Enough is enough. This draft was created immediately after the article was deleted and has been declined or rejected three times, and isn't likely to be ready for comparison against the deleted article, and it will be necessary to be better than the deleted article in order to be accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Draft namespace used to circumvent regular deletion discussion. jni (delete)...just not interested 08:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Disagree with this decision to delete as this person has had numerous articles published, including one recently which was an original photograph on the front page of a printed newspaper, as noted in the references under The Daily Star, Oneonta, New York.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:110D:43FB:B052:8556:4787:3480 (talk) 03:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * When this discussion has run its course an administrator will weigh the arguments on both sides and close the discussion. Until then there is nothing for an administrator to do. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - Not sure what the anonymous editor is saying is harassment. Any further disruption of this MFD will result in a request for semi-protection of the project page.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete – While lack of notability is itself not normally grounds for a draft's deletion at MfD, what seems to be happening here is disruptive editing and that can be considered as grounds for deletion of a repeatedly declined draft. The arguments for notability despite being told the subject does not meeting WP's criteria for notability seem to be in the vein of NOTGETTINGIT. The criteria are made as explicit as they are to avoid substituting someone's ordinary understanding of the term notability for community consensus. Accusations of harassment are unfounded.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 21:36, 16 December 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.