Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleanor L. Bennett

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. J04n(talk page) 01:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Eleanor L. Bennett

Eleanor L. Bennett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article was previously deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleanor Leonne Bennett. That article's creator stopped editing and a new account was created a few days later that created this and another article from that previous editor, both under slightly different names.

No new sources have been presented, only different versions of the same exact sources that caused the previous article to be deleted. Sources are trivial mentions that might verify the content, but do not establish notability for the subject. Article still fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. SudoGhost 01:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete Per WP:CREATIVE No third party sources. Mootros (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. Boy do I remember that AfD. The thing is, it was established that none of the previous sources were enough to pass notability guidelines. The big issue was that there was a consensus the awards weren't enough to show notability and really, that's all that she really had to argue notability with. It doesn't help that the article's original prose (which was sort of promotional in nature) was almost identical to the version uploaded by the publisher that edited under a different username. I'll be honest in saying that I suspect that this is the same editor under a different username. As long as somewhere they stated that they are the same person and that they have a conflict of interest in being the publisher, they technically aren't doing anything wrong. It's heavily discouraged, especially given how the last AfD ran, but as long as someone with a COI can edit neutrally it isn't against any rules. In any case, here's a rundown of the sources currently on the article, followed by the links in the external links section:

Rundown of sources

[1] This is her picture available as a background. Not really usable as a source to show notability. [2] This is something I'd argue would help towards notability but isn't enough in itself to give absolute notability. [3] Another art contest that could argue towards notability, maybe, but isn't enough on its own. I think people argued that this wasn't really enough to argue towards notability. [4] This is sort of one of those contests that's nice, but isn't really a well known enough one that would really give notability. [5] This is good, but a lot of people argued that it wasn't really in-depth enough to count overall. [6] This doesn't even mention her at all. [7] This is considered to be another one of those contests that would look good on a resume but doesn't really count towards notability as a whole when it comes to Wikipedia. [8] The big issue with this one is that it's ultimately a primary source. Her picture was used as a cover, but the only people commenting on it are the people who are using the picture. This is the type of thing that wouldn't give notability because while again, it'd look good on a resume, having people use your picture isn't enough to give notability. [9] A nice competition, but it's debatable whether or not this would be enough per Wikipedia to give notability. The thing about competitions is that most of them, the vast majority of them, don't give notability at all. Of the 1% that would extend notability, less than .001% of them are notable enough to where they'd give absolute notability. Even if this fits into that 1%, this isn't part of that select .001%. [10] This is a competition, but she didn't win. I don't think this would have given notability, but even if it did- you need to win first prize to establish notability. [11] This looks to be a contest run by the site, so this sort of falls under the same issue as her photography being used for the cover of something. If the only people that comment on her win is the website itself, then that argues against the notability of the award. [12] "Only" an honorable mention. This has the same issue in that if it isn't the first prize, it isn't enough to establish notability. Only on very, very rare occasions would a runner up or honorable mention extend notability and even then it's usually for the big big awards such as an Oscar. [13] This doesn't mention Bennett and doesn't look to be the type of thing that would be usable as a RS in any case. In order to back up the claims in the article, the source must at least mention Bennett. [14] Also doesn't mention her. [15] Ditto. No mention. [16] This is just a list of people who may win a contest. It doesn't really help establish notability and the contest doesn't look like it's the type that would give notability. [17] This is one of many links to a non-notable blog magazine (per Wikipedia, remember- they're very strict about what gives notability). Having your picture on a magazine doesn't really give notability. If a picture is ever put on a notable magazine (say, Time magazine) it makes it more likely that the photographer would gain coverage, but it's not a guarantee. All of the ones after this point are magazines that use her picture, so they're all considered primary sources since they're publishing her work. [18] Same issue here. [19] Same issue here. [20] Link is dead, but it would have the same issue. [21] Same issue. [22] Non-notable magazine. [23] Doesn't mention Bennett at all, but would still have the issue of being a non-notable magazine. [24] Aside from it being a non-notable magazine, it's fairly inappropriate to link to a sale site. I'll probably remove this one. [25] Even if this is the same Neon magazine that is established to have some notability here on Wikipedia, the issue still remains that this would be a primary source since they're using her photograph. [26] Doesn't mention her at all. [27] Dead link. [28] Non-notable blog. [29] Another non-notable blog/magazine. [30] Another non-notable magazine and like the others, is just them using her picture. [31] Non-notable magazine. [32] NN magazine. [33] NN magazine, doesn't mention her. [34] Just a link to a page that shows how you can submit something. Not usable for notability. [35] NN magazine. [36] NN magazine, link goes to a general page that doesn't mention her.

EL

[37] This was written by Bennett for the Guardian, so it's not usable to show notability. It'd be considered a primary source at most. [38] This is a repost of one of the pictures mentioned above. I seem to remember that people argued that this was a trivial source at most, which is probably why it's in the EL section now. [39] With the argument against the BBC picture in mind, the argument here would be the same.

The issue is still the same. All that Bennett has going for her is that she's won a few competitions that never seem to have gained any coverage. She hasn't really gained any true notice since the AfD closed last year. I have no true issue with this being userfied again, but I would emphasize that it should be run through an experienced editor before getting posted to the mainspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I have read through the history of these attempts to remove the entry on Eleanor Bennett and find it strange if not actually sinister, especially as it seems to be the same two or three editors who have been pursuing the case relentlessly. Ms Bennett is by far the most outstanding young photographer working in the UK at the moment, with an unsurpassed record of competition and exhibition successes and publication credits, including her current title of Young Environmental Photographer of the Year and pictures currently on exhibit at the Royal Geographical Society building in Kensington Gore, inclusion in the National Geographic and Airbus ‘See the Bigger Picture’ global touring exhibition in 2010, publication in major newspapers such as The Guardian and Telegraph, and contribution of cover pictures to journals of the status of The British Journal of Psychiatry. How would it be possible for her to have better credentials as a photographer than these? Although I am not normally a believer in conspiracy theories I find myself wondering if there is a hidden agenda here and the motivations of the people crying for her exclusion are not entirely pure.

I think it would be ridiculous if Wikipedia were to have no entry on the country's best known and most prolific and successful young photographer and can't understand the reasoning of those who feel that it shouldn't. It's beginning to look as if this matter will have to go for adjudication to somebody a bit more senior in the Wikipedia hierarchy without any axe to grind. The proceedings here are beginning to look very unsavoury. Coriander2 (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC) — Coriander2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• I wouldn't say it's sinister. I'm just in the habit of looking through the AfD list and saw that this came up on the list. As far as the other editors' reasons, I would say that they likely kept a lookout for variations on the name, given how sharp the conversations got in the last AfD. That's not uncommon and doesn't mean that they have a personal vendetta against Bennett. Considering that the last AfD was the way it was, it stands to figure that I'd remember it. In any case, if you want to show that she passes notability guidelines, you'd have to show that she's received in-depth coverage. That's really the big thing here: she hasn't received any such coverage that would show that she passes notability guidelines. Several people in the last AfD were actually long-term Wikipedia editors (such as User:DGG) and they'd voted against the article given the same awards that were here last time. The consensus was that the awards weren't notable enough to warrant keeping the article on their basis alone and given that not much has changed in the few months since the last AfD, I'm inclined to agree with them. The claim that she's the "country's best known and most prolific and successful young photographer" would have to be backed up by reliable sources that affirm that she is. If you can show those reliable sources and have them be sources that are reliable per Wikipedia, then I'd be more than happy to change my vote. Her being on exhibition is good, but exhibitions can only give notability per WP:ARTIST if it "has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, indeed there is an agenda. I.e. to go by third party sources that say something about the person. She might well be well-known, but if it is only by word of mouth this written encyclopaedia is incapable to deal with such occurrence. It is its shortfall, thereby given strength to written documents. Mootros (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I would request that you hold off any further action for a few days to give me time to put together a detailed case for mediation and if that is unsuccessful possible arbitration. Would seven days be an acceptable period? I need to examine the Wikipedia criteria carefully and construct a clear case. Coriander2 (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Mediation and/or arbitration are not relevant to the appropriateness of the article on Wikipedia, more time will not change that. However, AfDs typically run for at least seven days; nothing will happen to the article before then. - SudoGhost 22:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Suggestion The subject seems to be trying too hard. There are more sources to be found such as Northern Arts; Limerence; HUF but they all seem rather promotional and so it's not clear how independent they are. Anyway, I suggest that the subject create a user page on Wikipedia and donate some photographs to the project. Per WP:USER, limited autobiographical content is permitted — see User:DGG for an example of a respectable user telling us something about himself. As the subject seems to be talented and keen to exhibit their work, they might try contributing some photos and seeing whether they are good enough to be featured. By engaging with the project in this way, the subject will better understand it and we may get some good photos out of it. The page in question here could be userfied on that account pending further development. Warden (talk) 10:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by saying that 'the subject seems to be trying too hard'. As far as I know we haven't heard at all from the subject herself. Or do you mean that she shouldn't make herself available for interview by publications that Wikipedia doesn't consider worthy? The simple fact is that the subject has supplied artwork, including cover art, to a staggering number of magazines and book publishers, most of them too small to interest Wikipedia, but collectively it's an amazing accomplishment and validation of her work. The small press knows that they can rely on her for free artwork of a totally professional standard, because she is young, living at home, and more interested in her art than in making money out of it. This is how she has become well-known throughout the small press and small magazine publishing world, and why many of them have singled her out for interviews and treatment in feature articles. It would be easy to amass a huge index of her association with such publications, but as has been re-stated so many times here these would not count as evidence of 'notability' for the purposes of Wikipedia. It is this aspect of her work though that has brought so many people from the small press world in to support her as a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article. I don't understand the point about the possibility of the subject contributing photographs to Wikipedia, but my guess is that she would be delighted to do so if asked. Her email address is on her website and it would be very easy to contact her with this proposal, but as I don't really know what it's all about I wouldn't be the best person to discuss it with her.

But in addition to her popularity as a cover artist for the smaller publishers she has supplied the cover for an edition of The British Journal of Psychiatry and had competition wins with outfits as significant as The National Geographic since she was a young teenager. As is detailed in the article she was the winner in her age group at 14 and at the age of 14 had her work included as the youngest contributor in the National Geographic and Airbus ‘See the Bigger Picture’ global touring exhibition during the United Nations International Year of Biodiversity (2010). This was a major international exhibition, satisfying the condition WP:ARTISTpart (b) above, and her work is presently on exhibition at The Royal Geographical Society building in London as winner in the under 18 category of the Environmental Photographer of the Year Competition. Again this is a major competition and her part in it is major, satisfying condition (b) once again. She was also at 14 the winner of the 2010 photomonth Youth Award, sponsored by the World Photography Organisation. As listed in the article she has had other numerous competition wins, but as she is not yet 18 all of her wins have of necessity been in age-appropriate categories, which seems to disqualify them as legitimate competition successes in the eyes of the editors who have called for the deletion of the article.

The notability or otherwise of this subject is a question of editorial judgement, and anyone reading the history of the attempt to get a Wikipedia entry approved for this subject will see that the article has caused considerable personal acrimony which involved the same editors who are here once again calling for the removal of the article. Because of this personal involvement in a dispute that has, perhaps through no fault of the editors, descended to personal attacks, I think it would be appropriate for a completely neutral and uninvolved editor to act as mediator in the decision regarding this article's eligibility for acceptance. Coriander2 (talk) 11:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I think interested parties will be informed automatically, but in case it doesn't happen I'll just let you know that I have entered a request for help with conflict resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN). Coriander2 (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• I am a regular volunteer at DRN. That request has been closed, as DRN will not accept cases which are already pending in other forums. (The same is generally true of all forms of dispute resolution at Wikipedia.) A listing at Articles for Deletion is sufficient unto itself; this is the place to make your best arguments for retention or deletion and the administrator or editor who closes this discussion will resolve any disputes. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete or heavily trim -- This young woman is clearly very prolific in getting her work publihsed for (at most) a 17-year old, but WP is not the right place for her to be recording all her achievements. It would be much better if this was done in a personal website, where she would be able put up copies of the images. I suspect COI in the creators and editors. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the 'heavy trim' is a compromise that might satisfy all parties. As she gets older and accumulates wins in adult competitions the article can be expanded again, but for the present she would have a Wikipedia presence that would represent fair recognition of her considerable achievements. Coriander2 (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, so any article on the subject would be inappropriate, no matter what prose is found there. That might change in the future, but for now it is too soon to have an article about this individual. - SudoGhost 17:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm being overly pedantic, but surely it's overstating the case for deletion by saying that "any article on the subject would be inappropriate, no matter what prose is found there". The basis for that decision is indeed "what prose is found there", the decision can't be made in that a priori fashion. Coriander2 (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

A "heavy trim" would not solve the notability issue, and that is why the article is at AfD. Articles are not kept or deleted at AfD because of the amount of prose found in the article. The subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, which is determined through third-party reliable sources that are independent of the subject, not through "what prose is found there". Changing the prose will not change its appropriateness in that regard. - SudoGhost 17:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, the sufficiency of the evidence given is a matter of judgement. She has major competition wins and an extensive publication record. With respect, I would still like an independent opinion about those things, from someone who has no personal history with this debate, and will see if I can enlist the input of other independent editors. Coriander2 (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

That's what AfD is for, and other editors have commented and will continue to comment. - SudoGhost 18:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete, essentially per WP:CREATIVE: no major awards or individual exhibitions or works in museums. Virtually no reliable third party sources. As mentioned above: this might just be too early for an article about her. And to Coriander2: please do not try to see an agenda here; we are all volunteers, essentially working for the good of the Encyclopedia, so why see a conspiracy when there really is none? No one is "gaining" anything by keeping the article out, but we have policies we have to apply, and these are the result of years of collaboration and consensus finding. These policies are applicated to each "case", as NPOV as possible. And application of these policies points quite clearly to delete, at least for the moment. Lectonar (talk) 09:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to answer your points there, Lectonar, I am not suggesting a conspiracy, just that the two editors who initiated the deletion procedure this time have had a history of acrimony with the creator of the first article on Bennett and I find it hard to accept that they have no residual hostility to anyone trying to get an article published on this subject. On you point about 'individual exhibitions', that isn't in fact what the guidelines call for, just that the person's work "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition". I think two of the subject's (fully referenced) competition wins satisfy this condition, the National Geographic and Airbus ‘See the Bigger Picture’ global touring exhibition in 2010 and the current exhibition at the Royal Geographic Society building in London where she is the Young Environmental Photographer of the Year winner. Coriander2 (talk) 10:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, your line of dicussion let me think otherwise; if I have offended you with that, I am sorry. If you want to argue about our policies, this is not the place for it. You asked for someone not directly engaged in the topic to give his opinion, and I did that. Your arguing every single vote is hot helping your cause, btw. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You would be hard-pressed to find any example of me holding any sort of grudge or hostility. Opening this second AfD is not indicative of "hostility", but rather that this subject does not warrant an encyclopedia article; an opinion that has not changed the second time around, because the quality of the sources in the article have not changed. As to the competition wins and exibitions, those would require some kind of third-party reliable source showing that they are notable, otherwise they aren't indicative of notability because no sources have shown that the exhibitions or competitions are "significant"; being one of several winners of various competitions that occur annually doesn't show notability, especially when there are only primary sources and blogs that show any mention of it. - SudoGhost 10:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanispamcruftisement. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete and SALT per previous discussion pbp 17:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

References

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.