Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricky Powell

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. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Powell

Fails WP:BIO, and badly. Enigma^msg 16:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —92.40.28.80 (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CREATIVE, and all the sources are primary, therefore fails the basic criteria for biographys too. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I agree with nom and Spitfire's conclusions.--VS ^talk 22:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC) --VS ^talk 22:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The photographic genre of people in parties striking poses for the camera has never held the slightest interest for me, but it's not every party photographer who's the subject of a monograph from Powerhouse, and so I thought Powell might be worth a second look. "Fails WP:CREATIVE", we read above; yet a quick look in Google Books turns up one book (from Princeton University Press, no less) with a mention of our man as the photographer who was particularly influential in documenting the 1980s hip-hop and party scene. Granted, this is in a peculiarly breathless book for a university press, one whose author elsewhere earnestly reports on the brands of people's clothes and unashamedly uses gushy if vapid descriptions such as "legendary". Still, it might count for something. -- Hoary (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the claims made for him are now minor, but the evidence for these is good. -- Hoary (talk) 08:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete The new claims still do not make him notable per WP:CREATIVE and WP:BIO. Enigma^msg 20:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The former has various criteria. The first of these: The person is regarded as an important figure [...] Currid's book is one piece of evidence for that. The last: The person's work [...] had works in many significant libraries. (Pretty garbled, but I think I get the drift.) While Public Access is nowhere in COPAC, it's in the Library of Congress, Harvard Uni library, and NY Public Library (LEO). I can't work up any enthusiasm for him, but if he merits a "strong delete" from you, I wonder what you say to the people whose articles I immediately vote to zap. -- Hoary (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First one is easy- Regarded as an important figure, means evidence that people regard him as an important figure, which is basically finding 3prd party material saying so. it has to be actually shown, and I'd like to see the quote: mention on one page of one book is not really enough.

Second "many significant libraries" has to be interpreted in terms of what would be expected. For current American novels, I expect at least 2 or 300 in WorldCat. In particular, presence of an American book in LC is meaningless, and Harvard and NYPL get almost everything possible. WorldCat shows that his 3 books are held in 40, 30 and 17 US libraries. [1]. But this is a special genre--books of photographs by an artistic photographer. They really need to be judged more by the standards for artists in general. I'd expect museum holdings, usually. But perhaps his works arent the sort that museums collect. Creative professionals is such a wide combination of areas that it takes careful interpretation in terms of what's expected in the specific genre. DGG (talk) 02:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I too am unimpressed by the one mention (even a strong one) in a single gossipy book. (What has Princeton UP come to?) And I'd expect museum holdings, but I thought that that was just me being "elitist". WorldCat does show that Public Access is held in the library of the Smithsonian Institution and also the libraries of a small number of US universities that I wouldn't have expected either to have large budgets or to be major beneficiaries of publisher largesse. For what those holdings are worth (frankly I have no idea). -- Hoary (talk) 03:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 03:18, 17 March 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.