Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norbert Schoerner

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. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norbert Schoerner[edit]

A rather obnoxious piece of self-promotion (Dayfornight.tv is the creator, and, not surprisingly, [1] is Schoerner's website). "His seminal and innovative explorations of the digital image"? "Numerous group shows"? "Numerous books"? Please. True, the links mention him, but only in passing. Fails WP:BIO. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, tending toward keep. Wikipedia's articles on photographers are shot through with rather (or more than rather) obnoxious pieces of self-promotion. Nothing new here. (Indeed, this article was mild.) The task is to see through the bullshit at what, if anything, is beneath. If there is something, then you delete the bullshit. (Or, depending on your editing tastes, you delete the bullshit and see if anything is left.) I see somebody who verifiably (i) is the sole creator of a book published by Phaidon, not that common a feat even in this century when Phaidon seems eager for the gimmicky (as for this particular book) and vapid, and (ii) has been one of several contributors to exhibitions of some note. (Another contributor to "I Shot Norman Foster" was Chris Steele-Perkins [a red link as I write this], a first-rate photographer.) There's next to no evidence for the claims of having worked for this or that fashion company or magazine, but such claims never interest me anyway unless they are clearly described. (And I figure that the tiny percentage of fashion photography that's of more than the most ephemeral interest will sooner or later find its way into books.) I think the content of the article is well on the way to satisfying WP:BIO, even if it's not quite there yet. -- Hoary (talk) 02:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC) ......... Converted to "keep" Hoary (talk) 08:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started Chris Steele-Perkins.--Cerejota (talk) 07:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Hoary (talk) 08:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 02:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep WP:LARDed and WP:PEACOCK, non-trivial to find information that is not self-published, but can find the claimed multiple books, and can find the multiple group shows, as well being represented by a rather prestigious and well-known Camilla Lowther Management. Yeah, photographers tend to be an egomaniacal, self-promoting set, but if we allow non-notable porno actresses from Japan to remain in wikipedia, why not someone with real talent and notability. One man's cruft is anothers invaluable contribution. However, this article needs work like yesterday, it is an aberration.--Cerejota (talk) 05:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I clicked on the external links to the New York Times and the Guardian, and he is there. That's two major news sources that reference him, so that counts as notable. I'm not sure why the Guardian has those four pictures there, or why some consider someone bent over with a hole in their underwear to be artwork, but, whatever. I'm not one to judge. Dream Focus 05:17, 16 March 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.