Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Hitoshi

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hitoshi[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a photographer, formatted as a résumé rather than an encyclopedia article and not referenced to any reliable source coverage about him. An artist does not get an automatic pass over WP:NARTIST (or even WP:ANYBIO) just by bulletpointing a primary sourced list of awards -- an award counts as a notability claim only to the extent that it can be reliably sourced to media coverage about the granting of that award, and not if the only possible source is the award's own self-published website about itself -- and the only other references here are his own website, a short blurb on the corporate blog of a commercial stock-photo service, and primary source copies of his photographs themselves. Notability for Wikipedia purposes is determined by being the subject of media coverage, not just by being able to primary-source that the person exists -- but there's no evidence of media coverage being shown here. Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletethe nom arguments are mostly correct notability is not established by the sources, which are lacking. (However I think Getty Images is a very serious operation.)104.163.148.25 (talk) 05:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'm not denying that Getty Images is a serious operation. But it's not a media outlet, so blurbing a photographer on its corporate blog doesn't constitute GNG-assisting media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I get you, and I appreciate your highly thoughtful AfD arguments. I still think that being a Getty staff photog counts for something, GNG-wise, in the sense that they only take very serious types. I also think our photog is probably notable but there are inadequate published sources to demonstrate it. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He's had at least one photobook published. Here's the publisher's blurb about it. This doesn't prove notability, of course; but it does make me wonder if the feebleness of the current article results in part from its creators' incompetence. -- Hoary (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines for photographers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 21 February 2018 (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.