Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregor Rom

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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gregor Rom[edit]

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

Does not meet the WP:NRU criteria i.e. is not in a professional club not played for a high performance union national side or appeared at a major international competition Domdeparis (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are many photos by him in relevant international press and media. As central elements. If the media product "photo" is the same like "text" he is often "recited". Worldwide. Moppel123 (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the photos are references in the articel. Some more: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]... Die Zeit, one of the most important newspaper in Germany, the University of Hamburg, the Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg for example published his photos under his name. Moppel123 (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please read WP:GNG that should help you understand how to prove notability. Domdeparis (talk) 09:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutly. What I said: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The media (notability newspapers, universities, blogs, articels) are reliable sources and independent of the subject and have editorial integrity. The coverage (the publishing of his photos) is absolutly significant. There are hundreds of publications of his works. Alone in the internet. The publications are independent of him. And the significant publication of photos are no different like publication of articels. Or other works. We agree? Moppel123 (talk) 09:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about it? When is a photographer notability, which work are used worldwide in media absolutly independent of him? Hundreds? Thousands? Or millions of uses and namings? Where is the borderline in your opinion? Moppel123 (talk) 09:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read WP:ARTIST this should answer some of your questions. Domdeparis (talk) 10:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have a opinion? Please, don't play ping pong. I asked you. Not the wikipedia. Moppel123 (talk) 10:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And it's not all. There is also the 1st-league-rugby. Amateurstatus in Germany - so it's not a hard fakt. But a soft fakt it is. How many soft fakts it needs? Moppel123 (talk) 10:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have already stated that I believe there is nothing in the article that supports his notability. I have explained why he doesn't meet the notability as a rugby player which is the main claim in the article. if you believe that he meets the GNG or Artist criteria then I suggest you add sufficient information to the article to support this claim. I'm afraid I do not know what you mean by soft or hard fact/fakt. Please read the different pages that I have pointed you to. If you need more help writing a biography please read WP:Biographies of living persons. Domdeparis (talk) 10:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I changed the AfD from "games and sports" to "biographical". Moppel123 (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This person is not notable as an athlete or as a physician or as a photographer. The argument that having photos published with a credit line somehow confers notability on a photographer is absurd. If that was the case, then every working press photographer would be notable. They aren't. I have written several biographies of photographers. They become notable when in depth articles are written about them and their work, or book length biographies, or when their work is exhibited by major museums, or when they win major awards. That does not apply here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly failing all criteria of WP:ARTIST and have nothing to support notability claim per WP:BASIC. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2017 (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.