Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Hughes (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 delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew_Hughes_(photographer)[edit]

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

The article is an obvious WP:SPAM violation. The edit history makes it clear that the whole article is created almost exclusively by the subject, and it never establishes any real WP:NOTABILITY, its purpose is just to advertise its creator. Jeppiz (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under A7. Not So Dumb Blond (talk) 05:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I considered nominating it for speedy as it's so obvious. Jeppiz (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not deleting A7 as it does make some claims of importance, and it would probably be better to go through a community process than a speedy deletion shortcut. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and above editor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This one is pretty clearly WP:PROMOTION to me, and anyway fails to establish notability. FuriouslySerene (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2015 (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.