Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Wilson (photographer)

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The result was Keep (withdrawn by nominator). WP:NAC. JFHJr (㊟) 03:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Wilson (photographer)

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

This person is not the actual topic of substantial coverage to meet WP:GNG (lots of announcements by associated publishers and schools that would naturally promote her, though!); her publications seem not to rise to the level of greatness contemplated in WP:WRITER; she's facially very distant from WP:PROFESSOR; and her family relations alone are insufficient to help her WP:INHERIT anything. If anyone can verify the existence and import of the book reviews (that is, whether they were actually substantial reviews of works themselves lend to WP:WRITER, or substantial coverage by an unrelated party), along with some links, I'll gladly withdraw this nomination. JFHJr (㊟) 16:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if exhibitions are confirmed. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Both Laura and Wilson are such common names that their combination is common too. Luckily for the hurried googler, her work linked her with the easily googlable Richard Avedon. Googling "laura wilson" "richard avedon" brings us interviews with her at digitaljournalist.org, a press release from the University of Texas Press (NB this is quite unlike the vanity publishers whose names often appear in AfD discussions), fairly plausible mentions of articles by her that will be behind the Murdoch paywall but perhaps accessible for many WP editors, and an article by her in Variety. Dig around a bit more, and I find a notice of an exhibition at SMU of her work, and perhaps most convincingly, the information that "5 document boxes and 7 oversize boxes (12.2 linear feet)" [3.7 metres, for us non US Americans] of her materials are thought worthy of storage at the Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center. And that was just ten minutes' work; I wonder how much time JFHJr put into his research. -- Hoary (talk) 00:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About the same amount of time. I wonder about how your parting question squares with WP:AGF. As stated in my nomination, I'm withdrawing it. Cheers, and thank you everyone. JFHJr (㊟) 03:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added three sources from highbeam and expanded the one that was already there. It seems clear just from those sources that she passes WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:02, 20 February 2013 (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.