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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk Hooper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested prod, this man appears to be a non-notable fetish photographer and all the sources that were added by the editor removing my prod tag were either: to sites maintained by Hooper, or to a website called http://www.webwire.com, which, according to http://www.webwire.com/LoginPR.asp is a service for disseminating press releases. The article is clearly not suitable for an encyclopedia as Hooper has no work included in major collections (only something in the Kinsey collection - which according to that Institute's website contains many thousands of photographs including amateur photographers' work). Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete. The way that it was written, it seems blatantly like an advertisement. I suspect the person who disputes the prod is either Dirk himself or someone representing him. Aside from that, as you've pointed out, notability hasn't been established. Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedia and the careers of obscure perverted photographers are not encyclopedic. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the initial article was created by an SPA, the prod tag was removed by an SPA that is an Oklahoma City IP and then the 'improvements' were made by a third SPA that is also an Oklahoma City IP. Hooper is based in Oklahoma City; it may be a coincidence but I am a bit doubtful given the questionable quality of the sources. As can be seen below, Blushard, a major editor to the article and the only editor here to argue to keep the article is most likely demonstrably Dirk Hooper himself although he purports to be a third party. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Independent sources are way too thin. Webwire is a PR platform for more or less unmoderated press releases, not a reliable source. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there a few google hits for "Dirk Hooper" but neither those[1] nor the sources cited are good enough as regards WP:N--Cailil ^talk 21:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: nominator read my mind. -- Hoary (talk) 00:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC) ........ PS: I now reread the nomination and find that I don't agree with all of it. The nomination reads: The article is clearly not suitable for an encyclopedia as Hooper has no work included in major collections; inclusion in a major collection would be sufficient but is not necessary to show notability as there are alternatives. -- Hoary (talk) 01:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable/not supported. Also, the Kinsey collection isn't a photography collection like those of the Getty or George Eastman House: assemblages of works chosen for their aesthetic, (art) historical and related merits; the Kinsey Institute gathers photographic (and other) works - regardless of their aesthetic, etc. merits - as research material for scientific studies, based only on their subject matter. Works so gathered bear no distinction and their presence in such a collection confers no notability on the works or their creators. Pinkville (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It seems like the two major issues are supporting references and importance of this article. Since this is not a voting process, I’ll stick to those two issues.
  
  The references I provided are what I found easily on the internet. If they are flawed or weak, then I’m capable of digging deeper and will continue to do so, if allowed. There are numerous independent sources that will back up the information in this article.
  
  The second issue is importance. Clearly, Dirk is not Winston Churchill. The categories that he has been placed with (fetish photographer, fetish artist) are thin and largely in need of additional information and biographies. Two different groups (BDSM and WikiProject Sexology and Sexuality) have asked for additional information here, not deletion. Someone has placed this article as a sexual article with mid-level importance, not high, but not irrelevant either. While some people may not find importance in this article, clearly other people associated with Wikipedia does.
  
  Hooper is an active artist in the small fetish community, he has a consistent track record of juried shows, two solo shows and has been accepted into the Dirty Show (which is a large multinational juried erotic art event) three years in a row. He just had a major exhibition in Brussels Belgium, which demonstrates a wider audience.
  
  Again, remember we’re talking about fetish photography here. How many fetish photography shows have they had at the Whitney or MOMA? How many fetish photographers have work in “major collections?” Maybe Helmut Newton? If that is the bar we’re going to use for measurement here, then you’re going to have to delete a lot of additional photographers and artists on this site.
  
  Additionally, despite opinions to the contrary, the Kinsey Institute Collection is a legitimate collection backed by a major university and they state clearly on their site that the collection contains the work of notable commercial and fine art photographers.
  
  Statements like “perverted photographer” suggest that some people who are voicing their opinion have more of a problem with the subject matter or are not sympathetic to any effort to expand an area where Wikipedia lacks, and they are not personally interested.
  
  As for my own involvement, I’ve met Dirk on a couple of occasions and I enjoy his work. I'm not aware of any restrictions that Wikipedia has on updating biographies of someone whose work I admire. I’ve updated this article for several years and my experience on this site is mostly relegated to this article. I think advising me or helping me to write a better article makes more sense than deleting. - Blushard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blushard (talk • contribs) 05:58 and 06:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good, intelligent defense there, Sir. ¶ If [the references found so far] are flawed or weak, then I’m capable of digging deeper and will continue to do so, if allowed. / Please do. ¶ Two different groups (BDSM and WikiProject Sexology and Sexuality) have asked for additional information here, not deletion. / You'd be welcome to appeal on the talk boards of both for efforts to improve this article. ¶ [Hooper] has been accepted into the Dirty Show (which is a large multinational juried erotic art event) three years in a row. He just had a major exhibition in Brussels Belgium, which demonstrates a wider audience. / It would be appropriate to say more about these, e.g. to create an article about the Dirty Show (if it's as significant as you say). ¶ How many fetish photographers have work in “major collections?” Maybe Helmut Newton? If that is the bar we’re going to use for measurement here, then you’re going to have to delete a lot of additional photographers and artists on this site. / I really don't know the answer to that first question. When I'm in bookshops I notice that Taschen seems keen to blur any distinction between "art" and "porn" and suppose that this effort isn't unusual. It seems to have a fair number of books of photos of women tied up, tying others up, etc., but these tend to look much the same to me so I can't look them up here. One Taschen-published (homoerotic) artiste whose name has managed to lodge in my memory is "Tom of Finland"; for what it's worth (never trust Wikipedia!) the article on him tells us that: In 1999, an exhibition took place at the Institut Culturel Finlandais (Finnish Cultural Centre) in Paris. [An exhibition of what? And no source is given for this claim.] New York's Museum of Modern Art has acquired several examples of Laaksonen's artwork for its permanent collection. [Sourced to a book about ToF rather than one about MoMA.] ¶ despite opinions to the contrary, the Kinsey Institute Collection is a legitimate collection backed by a major university and they state clearly on their site that the collection contains the work of notable commercial and fine art photographers. / Yes it does. Then the question is of how it classes Hooper's work. If all we know is that it's in the collection, we don't know why it's in the collection. ¶ As for my own involvement, I’ve met Dirk on a couple of occasions and I enjoy his work. I'm not aware of any restrictions that Wikipedia has on updating biographies of someone whose work I admire. I’ve updated this article for several years and my experience on this site is mostly relegated to this article. / Your editing history is legitimate. But when somebody concentrates so much on a single exponent of a style, this raises suspicions. ¶ Clearly, Dirk is not Winston Churchill. / Well, that's a major relief. For an eye-opening account of the war heroism [hollow laugh] of Churchill, look him up in the index of Nicholson Baker's Human Smoke (which I happened to read last week). -- Hoary (talk) 01:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've updated some references and I'll keep looking. I guess I never considered expanding the Dirty Show article, but it does need some help as well. You might end up roping me into even more work on here! I'll check out "Human Smoke" too. Thanks! - Blushard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.228.71 (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I hadn't noticed that the DS already had its own article. But (through no fault of DH's or your own, of course), it's, uh, unconvincing. A bit of time spent on that would probably help your cause. (Incidentally, you sign by hitting "~" four times in a row.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I appreciate your attempts to improve the article but I still see nothing here that leads me to believe that Hooper satisfies notability criterea for creative professionals. Moreover, I'm not sure that all of the new sources are all that convincing. This leads me to believe even more so that Hooper is not notable given the fact that further research work the article's subject himself hasn't been able to turn up more. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Disclosure Blushard, in the interests of disclosure and honesty, you should reveal that you are actually Dirk Hooper, the subject the article under consideration. This [2] shows that Blushard is a pseudonym used by Hooper professionally. In addition, your last comment was added by the same IP as was used earlier to edit the Hooper article anonymously and is an Oklahoma City IP. That's either a hell of a coincidence or you are Hooper. Since the latter seems more likely, I'll note that I think its a little disingenuous for you to claim that "I’ve met Dirk on a couple of occasions and I enjoy his work" when you *are* apparently Hooper. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:Rule I just made up: If you argue to keep an article about yourself on Wikipedia, you're not notable. Delete. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the connection made explicitly there (though it could of course have been rewritten). But see the entry for Dirk Hooper (blushard) here. -- Hoary (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you scroll down to the 'statistics' section it gives Blushard's 'real name' as Dirk Hooper (also note that the photo of the model has 'dirkhooper.net' emblazoned on it. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right. -- Hoary (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2008 (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.