Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Semetko

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. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Semetko[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

There is borderline notability, but from my POV he fails both WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:COI and WP:OR. ImmortalWizard(chat) 00:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The "University of Philosophical Research" may be fishy (it's at https://www.uprs.edu , and note how freely available the "edu" TLD has been), but Semetko is a respected street photographer. Google Books suggests that he's mentioned, perhaps discussed, in a fair number of books; but at least for me, here, the texts aren't available so I can't peek inside and see what's said. -- Hoary (talk) 14:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as satisfies WP:GNG in that he has had a book of his work published by a major publisher (teNeues); has exhibited in various countries; and a quick search shows up enough independent reliable sources that have articles that address him directly and in detail: Vice, The Indian Express and Hindustan Times, which I have now added to the article. -Lopifalko (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Excellent work on the article by Lopifalko makes it more obvious that Semetko merits an article. -- Hoary (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of questions (as Northamerica1000 has requested "a more thorough discussion"). ImmortalWizard, you write above: '''Delete''' per [[WP:COI]] and [[WP:OR]]. First, which editor has a conflict of interest, and how has this conflict of interest damaged the article in its current state? Secondly, where is the "original research" in the article in its current state? -- Hoary (talk) 11:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: Thank you. I was referring to this version of the article where it had only two accessible (online) sources. One of them referred to this page, which is obviously WP:OR. Now, my knowledge of WP:COI was limited and I concluded that from the statement, "He is known for the strong sense of humor and irony that appear in his candid and spontaneous photos of every day life.", which was biased and not cited, paired up with the use of OR. That being said, I have not looked at the current version and would leave my comment as it is, even if it is somewhat wrong. Good that you brought it up. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately a diff between the state the article was in when you wrote your "delete" "!vote" and the state it was in when you wrote your response immediately above is difficult to understand because paragraphs have been shunted up and down, and orders reversed, enough to confuse the comparison utility. Here's the article as it is [in what is for me] now. You, ImmortalWizard, are free to find fault with it (I can easily fault it myself); but I think most people would agree that it has changed considerably, and for the better. Would you agree? (And remember: both Ad Orientem and Northamerica1000 have requested "a more thorough discussion"; let's not disappoint them.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - as I've stated, my past review was based on one of the older revisions. Looking at it's current version, I disregard that. Although there is still OR, it doesn't signify deletion. I simply have no knowledge regarding the subject's specific NG and therefore would not amend any further consensus. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 01:43, 11 February 2019 (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.