Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yasin Osman

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yasin Osman[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This photographer is not notable. Not won any awards in reality . Also sources are not valid and there are not enough reliable sources on the web available about this guy. - Dinar Hossain oleg (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG (simplified summary). Besides the The Star, Popular Photography, MTV News, and Upworthy articles about Osman's work as a community organizer already in the article, I also found this BuzzFeed article and this CBC article about his photographs of his grandmother and this Globe and Mail article that mentions him. It seems Osman is more notable for his work as a community organizer than as a photographer, but this is irrelevant. He passes GNG. userdude 19:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buzzfeed and Upworthy aren't reliable or notability-supporting sources at all. Articles that mention him don't help to establish his notability if they aren't about him, so the Globe and Mail article isn't helping either. "MTV News" is a blog, not a notability-supporting media outlet. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. userdude 19:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he accomplishes something more noteworthy as a photographer. The sourcing here just isn't enough to get him over WP:GNG yet: I already explained above why Buzzfeed, Upworthy, the Globe and Mail and MTV News aren't helping; Flipboard is a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person rather than being written about in the third; the Popular Photography cite is just a short piece that quotes his own thoughts on what he's trying to do with his work rather than verifying that he's accomplished anything noteworthy with it yet; Phaidon is a corporate blog, not a media outlet, so it already isn't a notability-supporting source even before you consider that it's also a dead link whose former content is unverifiable; and the Yahoo Finance citation is a corporate press release rather than journalism.
So in terms of footnotes that actually count for something, all we really have here is the Toronto Star and the CBC — but the CBC citation is from the CBC's local news bureau in Toronto, not from the national news division, so the fact that it's from the CBC is not an automatic "nationalized coverage" mic drop all by itself. People do not automatically pass GNG, as an exemption from having to pass the defined notability standards for their occupation, just because they can show two hits of human interest coverage in their hometown local media: he still needs wider coverage beyond just a couple of hits in Toronto's local media, and/or a more "inherently" notable accomplishment, before he actually clears the bar. GNG is not just "count the footnotes and keep everyone who gets to two": it also assesses the sources for their reliability and type and depth and range and context, not just their number. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2020 (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.