Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Aninaru

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. Sandstein 06:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Aninaru

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

Not everything touched by Inna is necessarily notable, and this chap seems a case in point. I mean, just look at the sourcing:

Blog post, blog post, blog post, blog post, blog post, blog post, blog post, blog post, blog post, blog post, blog post, blog post, blog post
Tabloid trash, tabloid trash, tabloid trash
Irrelevancy
Unprofessional interview by an aggregator that publishes effectively all news about Romania, whether notable or not

Which leaves us with this, something that's actually from a legitimate newspaper. But for one, if this remains our only source, the article still fails the "multiple published secondary sources" dictate of WP:BASIC. And for another, this seems like routine news coverage rather than something we'd be interested in having in an encyclopedia. It merely indicates a photographer has changed clients, something that happens all the time. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So we should just erase all the wikipedia pages for contemporary photographers? Those links (which are not all of blogs - mtv.ro, europafm.ro, protvmagazin.ro, utv.ro, tonica.ro -, so the multiple sources argument stands) are proof that Aninaru actually did those photoshoots or filmed those videos. It seems to me that you actually have a problem with INNA, not with this article, as you've started this conversation completely wrong.

And why is billboard.com irrelevant?

I get it that you're not passionate about photography, because then you wouldn't see this article as only news coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.136.138.253 (talk) 11:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) This nomination has nothing to do with other articles on contemporary photographers or on my views of Inna and/or photography. Let's just get that out of the way.
2) The billboard.com link is irrelevant because the only connection to Aninaru is that the photograph used in the article was taken by him. Under no definition of "significant coverage" does that matter for our purposes.
3) I grant that I perhaps painted with too broad a brush in labeling all those links as "blogs". However, we're still talking about the same level of coverage a blog would provide. Four of the links are very short pieces merely informing us that Aninaru shot videoclips. The other two are blatantly promotional pieces: "Edward Aninaru - the wizard of showbiz"; "Edward Aninaru conquers borders". - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:53, 8 July 2013 (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/2013 July 8. Snotbot t • c » 06:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Biruitorul, if it were for us to consider an article's value only judged on its sources, then all the pages presenting Romanian contemporary should probably be deleted, as 90% of all the Romanian press, both printed and online, is actually trash. And music channels websites, such as mtv.ro, utv.ro or europafm.ro are actually more reliable and I do appreciate that you've admited "painting with too broad a brush in labeling all those links as "blogs"".

This page, however, is of a Romanian photographer that actually got to L.A. and is now working with international artists. And the billboard.com link is definitely not irrelevant. Aninaru is a photographer, so a photo with his name actually written on it and posted on billboard it's something big for a guy that started his journey in Bucharest. I actually believe he is a great source of inspiration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.136.138.253 (talk) 10:45, 8 July 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 18:37, 15 July 2013 (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.