Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank De Mulder

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. General consensus is to keep after two-relists. The only delete !vote isn't a certain !vote; closing this as keep. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 15:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frank De Mulder[edit]

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

My searches have simply found nothing better at all and there's nothing convincing where I would've frankly PRODed but it likely would've been removed because of the apparent magazines connections, but aside from that, I'm simply not seeing anything else actually convincing. It seems there's also not an article at the other native Wiki. Notifying past taggers involved with this article JamesBWatson, DGG and Rrburke. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: In an article which has been edited by 20 different editors, picking out three who last edited five years ago, two of whom nominated the article for deletion and the other of whom tagged it for sourcing, and pinging them looks dangerously like canvassing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JamesBWatson Not all my intentions of course, I notify these because I presume they want to comment since they tag the article for issues. SwisterTwister talk 21:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

probably Delete. I don't really want to say he's definitely not notable, but the material currently present in the article doesn't seem to show notability: no worksin major museums, or major critical works about him. DGG ( talk ) 08:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NEXIST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC from sources I have been able to find. It's likely that more are available. Some source examples are listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Focus (published by Focus)
Stern (published by Stern)
Esquire
Stern
GVA
Style

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even though the article does not show notability. If you Google him you will see, add the word photography. Also add use the news tab. Some things may not be linked due to nudity, I do not know the policy on that but I will look it up because I saw at least one article that should be included. Jadeslair (talk) 16:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Northamerica1000's analysis and my searches, which confirm notability. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:12, 16 June 2016 (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.