Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wyatt Gallery

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. Given the recent potentially noteworthy events, it would probably be best to reevaluate this once more becomes known. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wyatt Gallery

Wyatt Gallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Doesn't pass relevant notability guidelines,

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This appears to be either a fan-page or a vanity-page. Article talks mostly about jobs the subject has had and where he has traveled. Notability might rest on claimed awards, but these are neither verified nor significant.
  WP:PROF could be relevant, since there's a claim that he's an adjunct at Penn (funny that article does not even spell the school's name correctly), but GS does not show any contributions that would pass art. #1. Finally, all the references supplied by the article are actually the subject's own PR materials. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Delete on above conclusive arguments. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep It meets the relevant standard for creative professions: "Wyatt’s photographs are in the permanent collection of the Museum Of Fine Arts in Houston, Texas and The George Eastman House" two unquestionably major museums. Have the people who don;'t want to keep even considered that? (Third party documentation is of course needed.) True, it doesn't meet PROF, but that's not his main profession. DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Passes
  talk) 18:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. With regard to the museum holdings, I certainly see the claims, but no accompanying
  WP:PUFF fan-page. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Keep: Notability just skyrocketed. Mkro (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment.
  WP:BIO1E case for the boyfriend (i.e. our subject) in a "yet another sex tape"-type scandal. If the tape goes on to become notable on its own, then maybe Wyatt will ride those coattails, so to speak. However, since this evidently just happened, it's probably a bit early to pronounce him "notable" on this account. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC).[reply
  ]

• Keep: Notability is getting stronger by the second - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm afraid you're confusing 15 minutes of fame with genuine notability. There are notability criteria for WP:PORNBIO, but he doesn't satisfy any of them. Agricola44 (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Note to closing admin. Several guidelines have been floated, including
  WP:CREATIVE, and WP:PORNBIO such that, if you add all these up, you get what is essentially a "piecemeal notability". Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2009 (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.