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 no consensus. Cirt (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Ferguson (photographer)

Adam Ferguson (photographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Does not meet the criteria of WP:CREATIVE Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's no problem. Even though I am arguing to delete the page, I can clearly see why you would have thought it was worth creating. Of course these debates - regardless of their outcome - should never reflect on an creator/editor who has acted in good faith (as you have clearly done). Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice. This was a tough one for me, I thought that this person should be notable enough as per WP:GNG, but apparently he lacks the non-trivial coverage from multiple third party sources. That's not to say there never will be such sources available, so perhaps in time this one can be recreated. JBsupreme (talk) 07:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I know the consensus so far has been 'delete', but I did a bit of in-depth searching and found some non-trivial coverage to satisfy WP:GNG - namely [1][2][3][4][5], and to some extent [6] (the first one also goes part-way to satisfying WP:CREATIVE's 'significant exhibition' criterion). The list goes on. Therefore, I'd say that this article satisfies the general notability guideline - significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. JulieSpaulding (talk) 07:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Response): Thanks for the links. Unfortunately the definition of a "non-trivial" source is a bit subjective. There are however some guidelines on relaible sources at WP:RELIABLE, which seems to favour news articles and scholorly sources. Self-published articles, blogs and promotional material are considered "questionable sources". Some of the links you provided might fall into the latter category. There are many, many photographers (and other creative professionals) who get mentioned in a range of material, but I am not sure that these are what the guidelines intend. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Jenafalt (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Again, as with the afd for Emma Summerton this article does fail WP:CREATIVE but is still about someone who is notable enough for an article on wikipedia. Not all photographers have to be very creative to be notable - some are notable for their commercial success, for example. Their are many sources available to show that this person is notable. Jenafalt (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response: WP:CREATIVE isn't about the creativity of the photographer. It's about their notability. As a rule, the photographer should pass at least one of the criteria set out in the policy and this should be supported by independent and reliable sources. We don't have that with this article. The one reliable source (Time magazine) is an article that mentions Ferguson but doesn't confirm his notability. I encourage everyone commenting here to read WP:CREATIVE and see if they can't find one or two sources that provide evidence against one of the criteria. If that doesn't happen, tyhe keep votes really aren't worth much and the article should be deleted on the basis of lack of notability Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response I am confused as to why this article has to meet WP:CREATIVE. Why can't the photographer be notable in other terms? Jenafalt (talk) 07:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response: He certainly can be, but then the article would only give passing reference to his photography and focus on the reason for his notability. As it stands, it's about him as a photographer, which is why his notability as a photographer is being debated. Even the article's name states that he is a photographer! WP:CREATIVE provides the specific guidelines for determining notability of photographers, among others. If you have evidence that he is notable for some other reason, by all means rewrite the artile and provide the sources! Wikipeterproject (talk) 08:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response: I suppose what I am saying is that he can be a notable photographer without being a particularly creative one. This was also the point I was making with the afd for Emma Summerton. There are some photographers who are not notable as art photographers, but are notable for other things - one of which might be them being a very in demand fashion or commercial photographer. The work doesn't have to be very good in a strictly creative sense, but their use by lots of people is. So for example virgin broadband might be a terrible broadband provider, but it is still important because lots of people use it. - maybe a not very good example, but can you see what I am getting at? I think that the WP:CREATIVE might be appropriate for art photographers, but not for commercial photographers.Jenafalt (talk) 10:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response. The "creative" in WP:CREATIVE is just a tag. If you read the first line of the criteria, it's for creative professionals, where the word "creative" means "make stuff". It covers scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals. It doesn't, as far as I can tell, try to imply that the creative professional is particularly artistic. Wikipeterproject (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interned at VII, shortly thereafter invited to join a small and select group (people from VII and Magnum) to appear (he's here) at "Seeking Justice: Social Activism through Journalism & Documentary Practice". No he doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE, just as a huge percentage of Wikipedia biographees don't meet WP:CREATIVE. Flash your tits for a photographer one day and be airbrushed into the centre pages of Playboy (US circulation 2.4M) and you are guaranteed an article, have photos by you shown in Time (US circulation 3.4M) and you're still a nobody. Do note, however, that its bizarreness aside, WP:CREATIVE is just one part of a page whose preambulatory nutshell says that A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Ferguson was covered very significantly by Photo District News, got more than a mention at Time, and is written up (not merely as an alumnus but as a featured guest) by an arm of Griffith University. These are all independent of Ferguson and their total adds up to significance to me. -- Hoary (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG. Coverage in Photo District News and Time is non-trivial in my opinion. Jujutacular T · C 19:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adam_Ferguson_(photographer)
No tags for this post.