Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David M Partner
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. Courcelles 23:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- David M Partner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A lot of content and sources, but he still doesn't appear to be notable. Joe Chill (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/question The article is rather a mess, but this source and this one seem good sources to me, and show that he has more notability (in my eyes) than do, say, these people or these people. What kind of notability are you looking for, Joe? -- Hoary (talk) 01:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The second article only showed me a paragraph before a message popped up that said only registered members can view it. A paragraph plus that one article does not show Wikipedia notability in my opinion. Joe Chill (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On the second article: I believe you, but for whatever reason I see two paragraphs, without even a warning that I'll only be able to view so much until I either pay up or get locked out. As for the first, it shows that he had an entire (small) show to himself within the NPG (no minor museum), and that the NPG then bought the photos. Smells notable to me. -- Hoary (talk) 02:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked again and it is 2 paragraphs, but I still get that message. Anyway, I'm not going to argue my opinion about the sources anymore because I already explained myself. Joe Chill (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On the second article: I believe you, but for whatever reason I see two paragraphs, without even a warning that I'll only be able to view so much until I either pay up or get locked out. As for the first, it shows that he had an entire (small) show to himself within the NPG (no minor museum), and that the NPG then bought the photos. Smells notable to me. -- Hoary (talk) 02:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The second article only showed me a paragraph before a message popped up that said only registered members can view it. A paragraph plus that one article does not show Wikipedia notability in my opinion. Joe Chill (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep per WP:ARTIST clause 4b - his 5 month exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery, London.[1] I think the article needs to lose a LOT of non-independently verified information though. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 12:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What Suriel1981 says. Keep. -- Hoary (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2011 (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.