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. Time to put this to rest, it's been relisted twice and not enough people are weighing in for us to come to any consensus so we default to the status quo. Clearly there are questions about notability, and in the absence of additional sourcing another trip to AfD in the next few months would not be at all inappropriate. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonnie Craig

[edit]

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

Poorly referenced, self-promotional (the author seems to be spreading himself over the internet), but most importantly, an article of very questionable notability, which is the matter to be discussed here Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now seems to be someone who is just starting to make a name for himself. Most of the coverage right now is sparse, and blog-like. I would not have too much prejudice for recreation when the subject gets more in-depth secondary source coverage. Gigs (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is enough evidence to suggest a level of notability and worth to the article. I cleaned up the article recently from what I know and from information on his site. I have followed his photography for a few years now, and is, in my opinion, a valid contribution. He has also had exhibitions in recent months with with some very notable artists, as well as being published by a major art book publisher. I noticed that he is also cited as a notable contributor along side a handful of others on the vice magazine wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.58.42.88 (talk) 01:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC) — 109.58.42.88 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Which is the "major art book publisher"? -- Hoary (talk) 11:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Morel Books - www.morelbooks.com -- added in this edit by an IP
    - Here is Mörel. It's a tiny art book publisher. I'm not knocking it -- tiny art book publishers have put out some good stuff (and Mörel is among these publishers), and major art book publishers have put out some crap. But major it isn't. -- Hoary (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - I meant major more in terms of the artists they have published. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.58.32.105 (talk) 10:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A lot of the content isn't sourced. Compare the sourcing of the list of his exhibitions with that of, say, this one. -- Hoary (talk) 11:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- exhibition citations added. -- added in this edit by an IP

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Sources coverage seems to be consistent Rirunmot (talk) 02:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see a reason to delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.153.232 (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:18, 20 November 2010 (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.