Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David dejonge

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David DeJonge[edit]

Self-promoting article about photographer, created by User:Dejongestudio. Author removed advert and COI tags without addressing those issues. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Author seems to have put up a redirect to a non-existant page. tj9991 (talk | contribs) 18:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Original article speedied; author reposted at David DeJonge. There are now some sources, but I'd still like to see the WP:COI problem discussed. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Very weak delete~~. Definitely a COI problem (I tagged the article as such) and some dubious phrasing, eg claims of being "recognized" for his work, but no mention of awards. References establish notability, but notability for WP:ONEEVENT, hence my inclination towards delete. Ros0709 (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I do not believe that there is a COI problem with this article, it just so happened that I was at his studio when I created this article and forgot to re-login as myself. I am in no way related to him nor do I have anything to gain for posting this about Mr. DeJonge. JordanWade33 14:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Very Weak Delete !vote above struck). JordanWade has made some significant improvements to the article since it was nominated for deletion. Whether or not he is the original article creator (he says he is) and whether or not he's closely connected to the photographer himself (he says he's not) is largely irrelevant - I believe the article establishes more than sufficient notability from multiple independent sources and is written from a neutral point of view, therefore even if there is a COI it has not compromised the article. Ros0709 (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear - JordanWade has just set out to prove me wrong, with this edit, which is hardly detached and neutral. Ros0709 (talk) 19:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, sorry man. I'm new to creating Wikipedia articles, but I'm pretty sure I fixed it now. It takes a bit to get used to writing in an Encyclopedia style. JordanWade33 19:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mendacious. Till a few minutes ago, we read DeJonge has received nearly 100 awards for his work, a remarkable assertion and one backed up (it seemed) by four references. (See here.) Trouble is, none of them actually backed it up. One did speak airily of "dozens" of awards, but didn't specify them and anyway hardly seemed a credible source. Two specified single awards. (I therefore deleted the pseudo-references.) I've already wasted enough time investigating this single grand claim, I'm not going to do more: the whole damn thing can go off to Deletopedia, with no prejudice about the possible later creation of a different article on DeJonge by some scrupulous, honest writer with no conflict of interest. I'd then hope DeJonge would be judged by his reliably referenced merits, and I would take the trouble to look up amazon.com and/or library catalogues for books of his photos, etc. -- Hoary (talk) 06:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History of photography-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 05:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, or stubify by removing unsourced allegations per WP:BLP. Bearian (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2008 (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.