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.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 07:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Does not meet the
WP:NRU criteria i.e. is not in a professional club not played for a high performance union national side or appeared at a major international competition
Domdeparis (
talk) 18:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep: There are many photos by him in relevant international press and media. As central elements. If the media product "photo" is the same like "text" he is often "recited". Worldwide.
Moppel123 (
talk) 22:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment please read
WP:GNG that should help you understand how to prove notability.
Domdeparis (
talk) 09:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Absolutly. What I said: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The media (notability newspapers, universities, blogs, articels) are reliable sources and independent of the subject and have editorial integrity. The coverage (the publishing of his photos) is absolutly significant. There are hundreds of publications of his works. Alone in the internet. The publications are independent of him. And the significant publication of photos are no different like publication of articels. Or other works. We agree?
Moppel123 (
talk) 09:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)reply
What do you think about it? When is a photographer notability, which work are used worldwide in media absolutly independent of him? Hundreds? Thousands? Or millions of uses and namings? Where is the borderline in your opinion?
Moppel123 (
talk) 09:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment Please read
WP:ARTIST this should answer some of your questions.
Domdeparis (
talk) 10:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)reply
You don't have a opinion? Please, don't play ping pong. I asked you. Not the wikipedia.
Moppel123 (
talk) 10:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)reply
And it's not all. There is also the 1st-league-rugby. Amateurstatus in Germany - so it's not a hard fakt. But a soft fakt it is. How many soft fakts it needs?
Moppel123 (
talk) 10:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)reply
I have already stated that I believe there is nothing in the article that supports his notability. I have explained why he doesn't meet the notability as a rugby player which is the main claim in the article. if you believe that he meets the GNG or Artist criteria then I suggest you add sufficient information to the article to support this claim. I'm afraid I do not know what you mean by soft or hard fact/fakt. Please read the different pages that I have pointed you to. If you need more help writing a biography please read
WP:Biographies of living persons.
Domdeparis (
talk) 10:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment: I changed the AfD from "games and sports" to "biographical".
Moppel123 (
talk) 19:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. This person is not notable as an athlete or as a physician or as a photographer. The argument that having photos published with a credit line somehow confers notability on a photographer is absurd. If that was the case, then every working press photographer would be notable. They aren't. I have written several biographies of photographers. They become notable when in depth articles are written about them and their work, or book length biographies, or when their work is exhibited by major museums, or when they win major awards. That does not apply here.
Cullen328Let's discuss it 05:19, 9 January 2017 (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.