Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Couvrette

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. MBisanz ^talk 03:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Couvrette[edit]

After extensive online searches, I've found that Paul Couvrette is just an average (one among 1000s) portrait photographer. He clearly should not be in the fashion photographer catagory of wikipedia. The claim of "the Canadian Photographer of the Year, Ontario Photographer of the Year and Ottawa Photographer of the Year". My question, is by whom? (Life Magazine, American Photo) Having met and collaborated with photographers like Yousf Karsh, does not make you a notable photographer. My nomination for deletion is base soley on the results of this photographer. Often results are harsh, but always fair. The article reeks of (self-) promotion, it's highly likely that there's been a considerable conflict of interest but it's possible that it could have been written by a fan. Frankly, the entire article reads like it came from the month of an egocentric photographer, looking to create creditability by using wiki. MagazineHound (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree that the article is a terribly written piece of fluff. There are clear WP:COI issues (the infobox photo, added by the author, seems to indicate it was written by the subject), WP:PEACOCK language, borderline WP:SPAM, and exaggerated claims not matched by the references. However, the 1994 Commercial Photographer of the Year Award from the Professional Photographers of Canada, his covers and photo spreads for Time/Life, Architectural Digest etc., and coverage in Ottawa Life Magazine allows Couvrette to pass notability criteria. The article should be scrubbed of any unreferenced self-promotional POV and whittled down to only factual encyclopedic essence. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you care to make a start at this job? As I look at the article now, I get the impression that its flatus content is well above 90%. (If I were to "whittle it down", I might end up with about three sentences.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC) ..... Further, when I google for "professional photographers of canada" "photographer of the year", the first three hits are for pages put up by its organizer but the next two are from Couvrette's website. I like to think that I'm fairly well up on photographers but none of the winners sounds familiar. -- Hoary (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can take a whack at it this weekend. (No rush, I suppose, since it has been wallowing on WP for more than a year). If you want to jump in before then - great - and if it ends up with only three sentences, well, then that's all it deserves. I see his official PPOC page refers to wikipedia as his personal website. Ugh. Some possible refs are [1], [2], [3], [4], although all except the Ottawa Citizen (which only uses him in a peripheral sense but does call him "notable") are fanboy style and leave me uneasy. — CactusWriter | ^needles 16:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The hell with fanboy-style sources; let's have good sources or none. After all, such an eminent photographer must have them in abundance. ¶ I've just gone through half of the article, deeply touched by the high regard with which the SPA authors hold Paul Couvrette, even if occasionally holding my nose. And then, after saving the result, I noticed something odd. Couvrette not only had an article in fr:WP (not surprising for a Canadian for whom great claims are made), but also one in de:WP. Cynic that I am, the thought occurred to me that it might not actually exist: I hesitate to say this (WP:BEANS and all that), but I have encountered puff-pieces bristling with links to non-existent other-language sources. Well, the links existed all right, but indeed they weren't what people might have guessed. Here you see me removing them: two links to categories in other-language Wikipedias. Mmm, tasty! -- Hoary (talk) 03:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The photo is identified here as "© Jeremy Calhoun for Couvrette/Ottawa". (And here's Calhoun.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. CactusWriter has demonstrated notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. First, Hound, you say He clearly should not be in the fashion photographer catagory of wikipedia. Then remove him from it, or in Wikipedia editing terms, remove the link to a category from his article. (This is an option I recommended to you on your talk page hours before you launched this, your latest of a series of AfDs.) Secondly, while I haven't yet examined the other claims made in this fragrant article, I will say that the whole thing has a considerable (and I presume unintended) amusement value. ¶ I'll probably be voting later. -- Hoary (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info An earlier paean to Couvrette, created by SPAs Ottawason and Hereinottawa, was summarily deleted by User:NawlinWiki on 11 Jan '08 as "blatant advertising". The article in its current state (unchanged since its nomination by MagazineHound) is very similar indeed to that deleted by NawlinWiki. -- Hoary (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on possible motivation. This encomium to Couvrette becomes increasingly fragrant (if in a spammy sort of way) on closer inspection. Google "paul couvrette" and the first hit is his company. The second is his article in, uh, that encyclopedia that anyone can edit. And now, take a look at his "About us": Google the name of the area photographers that impress you… then Google Paul Couvrette… if you really want an objective comparison written by an outside source. Yeah, right. -- Hoary (talk) 01:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on what "sourcing" is already provided: I've clicked on a minority of the (few) specific sources. So far, I've only found one that actually said what the positioning of the footnote implies that it said. If an assertion in this article is followed by a footnote, you can't yet infer that the assertion is actually backed up. -- Hoary (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unenthusiastic keep. He seems to be a vigorous self-promoter (and I don't see a claim for a single solo exhibition or published book); but he also does seem more than usually prominent among commercial photographers. The article will have to be cut back a lot, and will probably need monitoring to ensure that the spam doesn't creep back in; so whether people think an article on Couvrette should live or die, I'd urge them to put it on their watchlists. -- Hoary (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After drilling down this article to the bare (and barely supported) facts, I just don't see the notability. Couvrette has some (minor) claims to fame, but not the notability that I see as required for an article. I don't see the widespread respect from his peers and the well-supported acknowledgments from the mainstream media that the Wiki notability standards request. Yes, he is a skilled self-promoter, but that is not our standard. On my first read of the article, I suspected that under all the wild (and wildly humorous) claims (his studio was used by the Rolling Stones!; his customers at the camera store where he clerked for a few months included Sultan of Oman!; he was the father of digital photography in Canada!), that there was still a kernel of honestly earned, notable respect from his peers. Now that the article has been mostly drilled down (major kudos to Hoary and CactusWriter for their hard work), I still see a bunch of poorly supported claims bolstered by brushes with celebrity that don't amount to a notable article. Couvrette is a wedding and portrait photographer, runs a studio, has photographed some government officials, and has had some photos published in major magazines. Where is the significant critical attention? Where are the significant exhibitions? Where are the inclusions in the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums? The article does not demonstrate notability, delete. TheMindsEye (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2009 (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.