Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable stock photographers

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 of the debate was delete. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 11:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

list of notable stock photographers[edit]

Sublist of list of photographers. This list currently contains one (1) entry, which is already part of the list of photographers. If and when that list becomes too large, we can think about breaking it up into smaller lists, at which point this list may or may not be recreated (definitely without the redundant "notable" in its title). --MarkSweep (call me collect) 21:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The list has since been expanded. However, all of the 3 existing articles linked to are already on the list of photographers, and the inclusion of Nachtwey and Rowell here is debatable (neither is primarily known for their stock photography). --MarkSweep (call me collect) 18:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many prominent stock photographers are primarily known for something other than stock photography. Fg2 08:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nominator. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 18:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. howch e ng {chat} 00:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One item does not make a list. When we get to ten, we can try again. D e nni ☯ 02:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a red link farm. Also, it appears to be inherently POV and of little interest to those who do not have a serious interest in stock photography. In other words, it is listcruft. Stifle 12:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful list Fg2 08:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For these reasons: 1)Stock photography is a multi-billion dollar international industry. Maybe you thought it was just a hobby? 2)Information about the top players is very difficult to find - which makes this list valuable to anyone wanting to learn about the industry. Both from an artist/photographer perspective and from a financial/business perspective. 3) This information isn't found anywhere else on the Internet as far as I can tell. --cda 15:58, 27 January 2006 (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.