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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 05:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Vijce

Vijce (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Young Photographer from Germany. Started this article by his own and uses it on his website as bio. There was a deletion discussion in the german WP [1] which mentions that he is not relevant for the german WP. Therefore, in my opinion, the article does not match the relevant notability guideline in the english WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael B. BeVor ( talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Per GNG: Theindy100, PetaPixel, Australian Times, and the South African. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply

The South African & it is duplicated in AustralianTimes same author, same text, 2 days apart. Then there is this Indy100, same subject, and some more in a foreign language. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC) reply

The South African and Indy100 "Articles" are both just writeups about this self-authored blog post on PetaPixel. As noted below, anyone can submit posts to PetaPixel, which they publish because it provides them free content. All this does is establish that he's a competent photographer, and that's not enough to establish notability at all. There are too many good photographers who get an occasional mention or feature somewhere, that doesn't make them notable. Shelbystripes ( talk) 14:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Afetr examining evidence regarding sources, I am changing to Delete per TooSoon, and not enough independent in depth sources. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Not notable at all, and self-created bios should be deleted with extreme prejudice. Shelbystripes ( talk) 03:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment As a self-created bio, I am wary of its hidden PROMO agenda. It needs a neutral person to rewrite it at the least. Α Guy into Books™  § ( Message) -  12:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply

 Comment: The following is machine translated from the German Wikipedia.

Relevance not shown: Literature only distributed as e-book, the received awards are masses of companies in zig categories. At the mentioned Sony exhibition everyone is free to participate. --Michael B. BeVor (discussion) 12:47, 27 Jul. 2017 (CEST)

"Relevance: Through his worldwide awards and publications in magazines, the artist has a very international readership, Vijce deliberately decided to distribute via e-book at that time in order to make the books available quickly and easily to these people worldwide both from companies and from highly respected institutions in photography.There is also a need to pay attention to the fact that in contemporary photography, a wide range of awards and awards are awarded in cooperation with companies (as sponsors, for example) to be successful again and to achieve it creates quite a high degree of relevance in my eyes.

In particular, the two-time Top 10 listing at the Sony World Photography Awards 2015 and 2016, organized by the World Photography Organization (WPO), not only confirms exceptional creativity but also global recognition through the global press as well exhibitions. In addition, his work was used as a sign for the 2015 exhibition worldwide. WPO also includes greats such as Elliot Erwitt and Anton Corbijn. Whether you can take part in the WPO's World-Photography Awards free of charge, WPO is only for the fact that the WPO wants to offer every photographer worldwide the opportunity to apply for this highly regarded award. At the same time the whole Fotowelt of the excellent and listed photographers. If you want to submit your short film at the Oscars, it costs nothing. Nevertheless, the Academy Awards strongly support the relevance in the film world. In my opinion, Vijce is relevant through its numerous awards, worldwide exhibitions, books and international publications as a contemporary photographer. "--Diet671 (discussion) 09:59, 1 Aug. 2017 (CEST)

The award is not necessarily relevant according to our (!) Criteria: for the Sony Award he was nominated according to article "only". Street photography competitions from Yahoo and Flick I personally not as "professional competitions". The FEP Award is a young talent award. CBRE I can not judge, but it is a real estate AG. You should perhaps further elaborate the "exhibitions in numerous other countries" and prove accordingly. (For the e-books I see here also a problem). Here on Wikipedia there are some who are well versed in the field; maybe they are still reporting. --AnnaS. (Discussion) 20:30, Aug. 2, 2017 (CEST)

Dear Diet, I see it similar to Anna. I respect that the artist, you create and the article are dear to you! But please consider the following: Through its worldwide awards and publications in magazines, the artist has a very international readership. Vijce has deliberately decided to distribute via e-book at that time, in order to provide the books quickly and easily to these people worldwide. This is theory. What sources are there for the intl. Readership or his intentions to publish as an e-book? The Sony Award is and remains an open competition, as Anna writes, which for the WP has no relevance according to WP: RK. The other, numerous awards, unfortunately, are, as already written, for the most part, up-and-coming prices. Exhibitions in other countries would also be really relevant when it is an exhibition specifically for this one photographer, or a group that he belongs to. Also the internet research firstly refers to his own company, the WP and other photo pages. External sources are rare and are partly created by himself (the English Wikipedia article is apparently created by himself, even the biography page of his homepage only refers to the English WP). In summary: He is (currently) only a young photographer, which just does not meet the R criteria for the German WP. Best Regards -Michael B. BeVor (Discussion) 22:43, 2. Aug. 2017 (CEST)

Deleted. Relevance (not yet). Greeting --Mikeed (Talk) 07:37, Aug 4, 2017 (CEST)

• Comment: From my experience reading through policy, Wikipedia does not and should not care about WHO wrote the article. It is notability that counts. That is why their is no CSD criteria for "autobiography", because that would be a prejudiced reason. Also, WP:TNT/rewrite is rarely a reason for deletion, esp. if it's a PROMO-based TNT. L3X1 (distænt write) 13:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply

I'm not to sure on that, autobiography articles will often get CSD tagged as A7 or G11. I think the gist of the German disscusion is that the awards are no notable, therefore he isn't notable, I can't say I am expert on photography, so I can't be sure on that either way. Α Guy into Books™  § ( Message) -  14:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Based on my knowledge of photography awards, the German discussion/analysis is accurate. Also, the mention of PetaPixel above seems to refer to self-promoting blog posts this person written and gotten published there. For those unfamiliar, PetaPixel accepts "blog post" submissions from anyone and will publish them as "guest posts", which gives PetaPixel additional content for free. Publishing a self-promoting blog post is not an example of notability, it does not signify that the outside world considers the person notable. Shelbystripes ( talk) 16:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply

I removed PetaPixel from my list, however, the other sources I found mention him as a pretty well known photographer. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure what the other references are even references to, so I can't bother rebutting them. The more important point is, there's nothing shared here (or on the page itself as a cite) that establishes notability. Shelbystripes ( talk) 20:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply

I'll paste in the links here in an hour or two. L3X1 (distænt write) 21:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC) reply

I added them in my original !vote for clarity. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC) reply

I replied above as well; those links don't really establish notability either. Shelbystripes ( talk) 14:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Too soon. The neutral and notable third party recognition of him comes from 1) being shortlisted for the Sony World Photography Awards and its resulting couple of exhibitions; 2) winning the CBRE Urban Photographer of the Year award; and 3) a HuffPost blog article. This is not enough to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (people). Printed publications from third party notable publishers would tip the scale in favour of keeping, rather than self-published PDFs. - Lopifalko ( talk) 14:39, 17 September 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.