Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirk Weddle: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:50, 31 July 2008

Kirk Weddle

A photographer who verifiably exists and who verifiably took a rather good photo that appears on a well known pop LP. OK so far, but nothing else is asserted in the article, and some googling turns out bare assertions that he has worked for this, that and the other corporate client, as well as lots of bloggery and the like, but no more that I can find. I wouldn't be surprised if Weddle deserved an article, but there's not yet enough to go on. -- Hoary (talk) 08:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History of photography-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 08:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Searching on Google news and google turns up (I would say) enough results to prove Weddle's notability. Because of these results I think that the article meets human notability guidelines. —Atyndall ^{[citation needed]} 08:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or maybe redirect. He gets about 300 unique Google Hits, but looking through the first ten pages of them, I can't find any vaguely reliable sites which come close to offering substantial coverage of the man himself; none says anything more than "he took the photo on the cover of Nevermind", with a little background on the photoshoot itself. Both of the references in the article are actually about Spencer Elden, who oddly seems to be more notable than the photographer himself (though even he falls rather short of WP:BLP1E, and I see there's a merge suggestion on his article). Even Weddle's own resume doesn't list much in the way of concrete achivements besides this one album cover. If all that can be verifiably said about him is that he took this one photo, a redirect to Nevermind#Packaging and a brief mention there seems more appropriate. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 12:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 03:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it is possible for a photographer to become notable on the basis of a single photograph. However, this article (and its self-references) give us no reason to believe that Weddle has become notable. The article merely establishes that the photo is famous, not the photographer. TheMindsEye (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough here Modernist (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Might want to do some searches of his name followed by art fair or gallery just to see what pops up. A search of his name followed by retrospect might be good as well just to see if more info can be added to this. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 *'''Delete''' I think it is possible for a photographer to become notable on the basis of a single photograph.  However, this article (and its self-references) give us no reason to believe that Weddle has become notable.  The article merely establishes that the photo is famous, not the photographer.  [[User:TheMindsEye|TheMindsEye]] ([[User talk:TheMindsEye|talk]]) 12:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' not enough here [[User:Modernist|Modernist]] ([[User talk:Modernist|talk]]) 17:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
+'''Comment''' Might want to do some searches of his name followed by art fair or gallery just to see what pops up. A search of his name followed by retrospect might be good as well just to see if more info can be added to this. ([[User:Roodhouse1|Roodhouse1]] ([[User talk:Roodhouse1|talk]]) 14:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC))