Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Dench

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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Dench

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

Disputed PROD. Doesn't appear to meet the notability criteria for artists. Most significant claim to significance seems to be coming 2nd place in a single category at the Sony World Photography Awards. Claret Ash 06:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding to the article. Lopifalko (talk) 10:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He has:

His body of work on the English is cited by British Journal of Photography, The Daily Telegraph, The New York Times and Professional Photographer magazine and has featured in various news media (I've not yet included this final point in the article, see below)
Full, solo, exhibition at the significant Visa Pour l'Image photojournalism festival
Solo exhibition at Third Floor Gallery, Cardiff
2nd place, Sony World Photography Awards
3rd prize, World Press Photo Award
Made formal portraits of numerous notable people
Photographs widely used in the press (I've yet to add a description of this to the article as it's a significant amount of work to ref)

Lopifalko (talk) 11:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Per the addition of sources and improvements to the article by User:Lopifalko. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Brits have a seemingly inexhaustible appetite for photographs of celebs, most of whom seem delighted to be publicized. So the claim above that Dench has Made formal portraits of numerous notable people seems unremarkable, and the currently unsourced sentence Dench has made formal portraits of Tom Jones, Vinnie Jones, Heston Blumenthal, Freddie Flintoff, Alain Ducasse, Jamie Oliver, Vijay Mallya, Zöe Lucker, Tamsin Greig, Ahmet Ertegun, Alicia Silverstone and Dermot Desmond really doesn't seem worth inclusion. And I could make other quibbles besides. However, my quibbling-about-a-photographer-article energies are limited and are in demand elsewhere. Celeb portraiture or no celeb portraiture, the significance of this photographer is blazingly obvious. Well done Lopifalko! Keep. -- Hoary (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:ARTIST is more of an aspiration than a strict policy; there are thousands of article on WP about "artists" who have achieved very little. The references cited demonstrate that Dench clearly passes WP:GNG. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: References now clearly justify inclusion. - Ipigott (talk) 11:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Number and variety of sources indicate notability per WP:GNG Exok (talk) 10:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a load of additional info, and clarified various points. How long should we wait to resolve this? Lopifalko (talk) 12:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An AfD discussion is allowed to run for 7 days. An unambiguous keep like this could be closed by any uninvolved editor in good standing. See WP:NotEarly and WP:NACD Exok (talk) 10:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What Exok says. But if there could be any reasonable doubt, that uninvolved editor should instead let the AfD discussion go on for the full seven days. The additional time is only a mild irritation for people who think the article should remain, and letting the AfD go on for the full time reduces the risk that anyone will later complain about an improper ending and challenge this (yawn). -- Hoary (talk) 10:05, 13 January 2012 (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.