Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Hill (photographer)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Notability has not been established. Photographing other famous individuals does not assert notability. seicer | talk | contribs 04:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hill (photographer)

edit
Peter Hill (photographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I removed the WP:prod on this because it has been done and contested in the past. However, I can't find any sources to help prove notability so I feel it should be deleted. Raven1977 (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hill seems to be no more than one in tens of thousands of rock photographers. He's young; he may go far. If/when he goes significantly further (solo exhibitions, books noted for the photographer as well as the subject matter, critical commentary), he can get an article; till then, 'fraid not. Delete. -- Hoary (talk) 00:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article does not independently establish notability. The article merely restates the contents of Hill's website and other self-produced documentation. I agree with Hoary that deletion does not preclude a future article when notability is able to be independently established. TheMindsEye (talk) 04:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not yet there, no prejudice to future re-creation if he becomes notable in the end. --Crusio (talk) 09:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is established by the notability of the numerous artists Hill has been sought out by to provide key material - such as covers of top selling albums, music books, top selling music magazines, videos etc. Some references are [1], [2] [3] Citizensmith (talk) 11:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Sources 1 & 2, while reliable sources, only mention him in passing. Source #3 is a book which he contributed to as a photographer, not about him. I don't doubt he exists, and that he photographs notable bands, but none of these sources, or the ones added to the article, appear to cover him in depth, and don't seem to satisfy the notability guideline. User:Raven1977Talk to meMy edits 18:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't normally edit Wikipedia but I am an avid reader as well as a huge photography fan so wanted to add my tuppence worth. We study Peter Hill as a photographer on my University course and I don't believe Hill is one among tens of thousands of rock photographers. Just entering 'rock photographer' into google proves that. He's a leading light in the music photography world and notability can be helped proven by some of the biggest bands in the world such as Fall out Boy using him, and only him, to take photos of them for websites such as myspace. [4] ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotphotographer (talk • contribs) 18:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC) — Scotphotographer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"keeeeeep" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.111.104 (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC) — 88.106.111.104 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This person has photographed artists who are notable, but there is nothing in the references given to show that he is notable himself. Association with the musicians cited does not give notability. A reference needs to more than just mention the photographer - it needs to comment on the photography. Jenafalt (talk) 10:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We read above: We study Peter Hill as a photographer on my University course. Splendid! Where's the web page for the university course, or better still the lecturer's Powerpoint/Wimpypoint/Slidy slides or even PDF handout for it? -- Hoary (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep despite SPA voting. Photographer of covers etc for multiple notable albums and artists should be notable. Better to have unified article rather than duplicating text in album articles. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peter_Hill_(photographer)&oldid=1097570023"