Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toby McFarlan Pond

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 no consensus. Weighing up both sides, I think there's no consensus on whether he's notable, as though the keeps are more numerous they're also not strong. Fences&Windows 04:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toby McFarlan Pond[edit]

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

Nothing to assert notability per WP:CREATIVE. JaGa^talk 22:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - his images have appeared in the WSJ, NY Times, W, and other well-known magazines, see here. He's also done cover art for Bjork, see here and there. However, I can't many sources about him in a quick Internet search, other than the WSJ. I'm not sure if that's enough. Bearian (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the cites. What do you think? Bearian (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The paucity of sources about him is a sticking point, but his work seems to be high-profile enough to warrant an article. Cerebellum (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears notable enough, and searching for coverage of photographers is arduous enough to allow more time. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merely showing up in major newspapers is not, IMO, evidence of a major body of work receiving significant coverage. There's a difference between being a successful professional (which the subject is), and being notable, in the sense that they receive significant coverage in sources independent of the subject (WP:BIO), or in the sense that they make significant contributions to the knowledge of the human race (WP:PROF, WP:CREATIVE). That coverage being lacking, I don't think we should keep this article. Ray^Talk 19:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources found by Bearian. Edward321 (talk) 03:41, 18 December 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.