Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommy Ga-Ken Wan

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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 08:21Z

Tommy Ga-Ken Wan[edit]

Claims of notability only in that this person has photographed famous people, and a writer has praised him. Only sources are his own website and his blog. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete: As per Wikipedia's policy, the article is written from an objective point of view, stating only facts. The quotation by the writer is unsourced, but the photographs on the official site corroborate the truth of the article's claims of who he has photographed. Shouldn't the people a photographer photographs be an important part of his or her notability? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seventeenagain (talk • contribs) 19:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Existence is not notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Tis true, check out WP:BIO. Deizio talk 21:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm not too sure about the reasoning "He has photographed notable people and is therefore notable" that is implied in the keep vote above. If it works though, then I've photographed Mount Rushmore, Big Ben, and Monte Carlo Casino, among other notable places. Someone write about me! Charlie 10:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the reasoning is that he has been commissioned to photograph notable people.
Delete: The claims of notability are weak, and they are also unsourced. Heimstern Läufer 18:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hair away from speedy. No evidence of notability. Deizio talk 18:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. When we've got publications, exhibitions, critical commentary, different story. Robertissimo 04:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I might be swayed if any of his subjects were more than borderline notable, but otherwise this guy seems like any other gainfully employed professional magazine photographer. Ford MF 18:38, 30 December 2006 (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.