Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleanor L. Bennett: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 04:04, 23 April 2013

Eleanor L. Bennett

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

Article was previously deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleanor Leonne Bennett. That article's creator stopped editing and a new account was created a few days later that created this and another article from that previous editor, both under slightly different names.

No new sources have been presented, only different versions of the same exact sources that caused the previous article to be deleted. Sources are trivial mentions that might verify the content, but do not establish notability for the subject. Article still fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Sudo Ghost 01:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:CREATIVE No third party sources. Mootros (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Boy do I remember that AfD. The thing is, it was established that none of the previous sources were enough to pass notability guidelines. The big issue was that there was a consensus the awards weren't enough to show notability and really, that's all that she really had to argue notability with. It doesn't help that the article's original prose (which was sort of promotional in nature) was almost identical to the version uploaded by the publisher that edited under a different username. I'll be honest in saying that I suspect that this is the same editor under a different username. As long as somewhere they stated that they are the same person and that they have a conflict of interest in being the publisher, they technically aren't doing anything wrong. It's heavily discouraged, especially given how the last AfD ran, but as long as someone with a COI can edit neutrally it isn't against any rules. In any case, here's a rundown of the sources currently on the article, followed by the links in the external links section:

Template:CollapsedShell {{CollapsedShell | text=EL | 1=

[1] This was written by Bennett for the Guardian, so it's not usable to show notability. It'd be considered a primary source at most.
[2] This is a repost of one of the pictures mentioned above. I seem to remember that people argued that this was a trivial source at most, which is probably why it's in the EL section now.
[3] With the argument against the BBC picture in mind, the argument here would be the same.

The issue is still the same. All that Bennett has going for her is that she's won a few competitions that never seem to have gained any coverage. She hasn't really gained any true notice since the AfD closed last year. I have no true issue with this being userfied again, but I would emphasize that it should be run through an experienced editor before getting posted to the mainspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 :*'''Delete''' Per [[WP:CREATIVE]] No third party sources. [[User:Mootros|Mootros]] ([[User talk:Mootros|talk]]) 02:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
+*'''Delete'''. Boy do I remember that AfD. The thing is, it was established that none of the previous sources were enough to pass notability guidelines. The big issue was that there was a consensus the awards weren't enough to show notability and really, that's all that she really had to argue notability with. It doesn't help that the article's original prose (which was sort of promotional in nature) was almost identical to the version uploaded by the publisher that edited under a different username. I'll be honest in saying that I suspect that this is the same editor under a different username. As long as somewhere they stated that they are the same person and that they have a conflict of interest in being the publisher, they technically aren't doing anything wrong. It's heavily discouraged, especially given how the last AfD ran, but as long as someone with a COI can edit neutrally it isn't against any rules. In any case, here's a rundown of the sources currently on the article, followed by the links in the external links section:
+{{CollapsedShell | text=Rundown of sources | 1=
+#[http://www.naturedetectives.org.uk/download/wallpapers_photo_competition_2010.htm] This is her picture available as a background. Not really usable as a source to show notability.
+#[http://www.ngkids.co.uk/cool_stories/1472/ng_kids_2010_photography_competition_results/] This is something I'd argue would help towards notability but isn't enough in itself to give absolute notability.
+#[http://www.worldphoto.org/news-and-events/2010-photomonth-youth-award-winner-announced/] Another art contest that could argue towards notability, maybe, but isn't enough on its own. I think people argued that this wasn't really enough to argue towards notability.
+#[http://www.papworth.org.uk/news-detail.php?aid=217] This is sort of one of those contests that's nice, but isn't really a well known enough one that would really give notability.
+#[http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/gallery/2010/sep/07/mencap-photography-competition-learning-disability] This is good, but a lot of people argued that it wasn't really in-depth enough to count overall.
+#[http://www.mencap.org.uk/news/article/snap-it-mencap-photography-exhibition-launches-london] This doesn't even mention her at all.
+#[http://www.winstonswish.org.uk/events.asp?section=000100010005000100010004&preview=1&itemtitle=Peter+Pan&itemid=2039] This is considered to be another one of those contests that would look good on a resume but doesn't really count towards notability as a whole when it comes to Wikipedia.
+#[http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/202/2.cover-expansion] The big issue with this one is that it's ultimately a primary source. Her picture was used as a cover, but the only people commenting on it are the people who are using the picture. This is the type of thing that wouldn't give notability because while again, it'd look good on a resume, having people use your picture isn't enough to give notability.
+#[http://www.nationaltheatre.org.uk/discover/port-urban-photography-competition] A nice competition, but it's debatable whether or not this would be enough '''per Wikipedia''' to give notability. The thing about competitions is that most of them, the vast majority of them, don't give notability at all. Of the 1% that would extend notability, less than .001% of them are notable enough to where they'd give absolute notability. Even if this fits into that 1%, this isn't part of that select .001%.
+#[http://www.peak-imaging.com/htmls/peak_photography_competition_2012] This is a competition, but she didn't win. I don't think this would have given notability, but even if it did- you need to win first prize to establish notability.
+#[http://www.designweek.co.uk/whats-on/environmental-photographer-of-the-year-2013/3036304.article] This looks to be a contest run by the site, so this sort of falls under the same issue as her photography being used for the cover of something. If the only people that comment on her win is the website itself, then that argues against the notability of the award.
+#[http://www.seethebiggerpicture.org/honourable-mention.php?image=668] "Only" an honorable mention. This has the same issue in that if it isn't the first prize, it isn't enough to establish notability. Only on very, very rare occasions would a runner up or honorable mention extend notability and even then it's usually for the big big awards such as an Oscar.
+#[http://www.charnwoodarts.com/projects/vision_09] This doesn't mention Bennett and doesn't look to be the type of thing that would be usable as a RS in any case. In order to back up the claims in the article, the source must at least mention Bennett.
+#[http://www.artrabbit.com/events/event&event=24470] Also doesn't mention her.
+#[http://www.artinmacclesfield.co.uk/page7.htm] Ditto. No mention.
+#[http://www.parkerharris.co.uk/competition/EPOTY-2012] This is just a list of people who may win a contest. It doesn't really help establish notability and the contest doesn't look like it's the type that would give notability.
+#[http://the-otolith.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/issue-twenty-three-southern-spring-2011.html] This is one of many links to a non-notable blog magazine (per Wikipedia, remember- they're very strict about what gives notability). Having your picture on a magazine doesn't really give notability. If a picture is ever put on a notable magazine (say, Time magazine) it makes it more likely that the photographer would gain coverage, but it's not a guarantee. All of the ones after this point are magazines that use her picture, so they're all considered primary sources since they're publishing her work.
+#[http://indigomosaic.webs.com/apps/photos/photo?photoid=159558728] Same issue here.
+#[http://www.stonehighway.com/photography-and-artwork.html] Same issue here.
+#[http://www.recoveringself.com/purchase-rts/recovering-the-self(2012)] Link is dead, but it would have the same issue.
+#[http://www.brusquemagazine.com/august-2012.html] Same issue.
+#[http://www.scene4.com/archivesqv6/aug-2012/0812/eleanorbennett0812.html] Non-notable magazine.
+#[http://www.cicadamag.com/thisissue/novdec-2011] Doesn't mention Bennett at all, but would still have the issue of being a non-notable magazine.
+#[http://www.etsy.com/listing/105739519/the-filth-issue-seven] Aside from it being a non-notable magazine, it's fairly inappropriate to link to a sale site. I'll probably remove this one.
+#[http://www.neonmagazine.co.uk/?p=1935] Even if this is the same Neon magazine that is established to have some notability here on Wikipedia, the issue still remains that this would be a primary source since they're using her photograph.
+#[http://www.themanilaenvelope.com/past-issues/spring-2012/art/] Doesn't mention her at all.
+#[http://www.downermagazine.com/] Dead link.
+#[http://hobocampreview.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/eleanor-leonne-bennett.html] Non-notable blog.
+#[http://www.vineleavesliteraryjournal.com/issue-03-jul-2012.html] Another non-notable blog/magazine.
+#[http://issuu.com/quarterafter/docs/issue_no.2_for_issuu] Another non-notable magazine and like the others, is just them using her picture.
+#[http://usersites.horrorfind.com/home/horror/darkfire/] Non-notable magazine.
+#[http://theofipress.webs.com/coverart.htm] NN magazine.
+#[http://www.glintliteraryjournal.com/current/] NN magazine, doesn't mention her.
+#[http://www.brittlestar.org.uk/] Just a link to a page that shows how you can submit something. Not usable for notability.
+#[http://www.stickmanreview.com/V11N1/index.html] NN magazine.
+#[http://www.lifeforcemagazine.com/] NN magazine, link goes to a general page that doesn't mention her.}}
+{{CollapsedShell | text=EL | 1=
+#[http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/gallery/2010/apr/28/photography1] This was written by Bennett for the Guardian, so it's not usable to show notability. It'd be considered a primary source at most.
+#[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-13412275] This is a repost of one of the pictures mentioned above. I seem to remember that people argued that this was a trivial source at most, which is probably why it's in the EL section now.
+#[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/uk/london/galleries/8923454/Open-House-London-the-best-pictures.html?image=6] With the argument against the BBC picture in mind, the argument here would be the same.
+:The issue is still the same. All that Bennett has going for her is that she's won a few competitions that never seem to have gained any coverage. She hasn't really gained any true notice since the AfD closed last year. I have no true issue with this being userfied again, but I would emphasize that it should be run through an experienced editor before getting posted to the mainspace. [[User:Tokyogirl79|Tokyogirl79]][[user talk:Tokyogirl79|'''<span style='color: #19197;background-color: #FFFFFF;'>  (｡◕‿◕｡)</span>''']]  04:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:04, 23 April 2013

Eleanor L. Bennett

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.