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.
When it comes to notability, there is no clear consensus whether she actually meets GNG or not with multiple editors arguing both sides convincingly. The reason I decided to close this discussion rather than to relist it was that the majority of the discussion was instead about questions that this AFD cannot and should not decide but should be discussed first in a broader fashion with input from the whole community.
I am, of course, speaking of the question of paid COI editing. A number of editors have argued that this alone, no matter the merits of the article, is sufficient to delete the article. Which it isn't, at least how the policy is currently worded. While WP:PAID clearly mentions that paid contributions without prior disclosure are against the Foundation's ToU, there is nothing in this or any other applicable policy that supports the fruit of the poisonous tree arguments made in this AFD. Currently, as much as many people might hate it, there is no policy-based reason to delete an article just because it was created in violation of WP:PAID, especially when the same article was later cleaned up by other editors and - despite it's promotional origin - no longer violates any policies (in its current state); WP:NOTPROMO in particular does not actually say "delete such articles", it just says that all articles have to follow the policies and WP:COI "discourages" such editing without explicitly forbidding it.
As WP:PAID#Changing this policy mentions, that policy can be changed and judging from this discussion, there might be consensus to do so. However, this is not the correct venue to do so. If and when such a discussion took place, the article's fate can be re-assessed based on the outcome of this discussion.
No evidence of notability. Some of the sources cited aren't independent, some don't even mention the subject. Among the acceptable sources, I have found just one word "stylistically" that is about the subject. I've looked for better sources, and failed to find any. Maproom (talk) 08:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep The article as it stands has a nasty taint of the promotional bio, but she has received media coverage over several years, with a couple of articles in American Photo magazine and some other coverage, as well as a lot of shorter articles on her photoshoots and famous images. None of it is super-lengthy, but I think there's enough. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong delete I am not convinced by the notab. arguments.Pure promotional work. Winged Blades Godric 12:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
strong keep The sources make it clear that this person passes the GNG. Any additional promotionalism (and some has been removed) can be (and is being) dealt with via normal editing. There is no policy-based reason to delete here. The sourced awards alone are sufficient to establish notability. Softlavender put it well above. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The IMP awards are not a notable award. Per the award website impawards.com "Each year we choose our picks for the best and worst movie posters of the year as well as winners in various genre categories, best taglines, best TV posters and more." They don't actually award anything, there's no prize etc. Similarly, a merit award for Celebrity Profile by the Society of Publication Designers means she was published in the society's Publication Design Annual. None of this establishes notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mduvekot (talk • contribs) 01:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Not sufficiently notable with in-depth coverage in RS. Annenberg Space for Photography includes "emerging photographic talents" so it's not clear the significance of that. I found this review of the Portraits book: "To put it succinctly, this is a book for people who are fascinated by celebrities. It can only be of passing interest to a photographer. This is a book of celebrity photographers taking photographs of celebrities. It's doubtful that any of these would have made it past a magazine editor had the subject not been a celebrity. I naively thought this was a book about portrait photography. Pass it by." This does not impress me. Everything else also seems minor. MB 15:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A bad review is just as relevant as a good review for notability. We don't delete articles because someone has a bad review. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I take it that MB's argument here is that the bad review of the book means that it is not an RS. That is not a method we normally apply, I think. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The review in question is an amazon review. It is not used in the article. It does however, support the view that Nield's work is not of encyclopedic interest. Mduvekot (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I don't believe the book is a RS. The National Enquirer is "published", but not considered a RS. This book seems to be the equivalent of tabloid journalism, published to make money off the fascination with celebrities.MB 17:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I agree with MB's assessment on notability: the sources aren't in depth and don't demosntrate why the subject is significant. Even if it is a GNG pass, it is borderline. Additionally, GNG is only part of WP:N, the other part is the requirement that it pass the policy of WP:NOT. WP:NOTSPAM is relevant here. The article creator is a declared paid editor, which is fine under the WMF terms of use. It does not mean, however, that we aren't able to enforce local policy here. The editor created the page on a non-notable to borderline notable at best creative because they were specifically paid to create a Wikipedia article that would be indexed by Google. Their name makes it clear that they are a marketing person and they have declared that they were paid for this reason. While this might be okay under the TOU it is quite clearly a violation of NOTSPAM by any reasonable definition of the term promotionalism and seals the deal on deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, and strongly. TonyBallioni's assessment above says all that needs to be said and quotes the relevant policies and guidelines. The creator, Marcomgirl (Marketing Communication), believes that the paid editing declaration as required by policy means free rein to make money out of the volunteers' work here - that's not the way the declaration is supposed to work. Sadly, I have also been attacked for my comments on this issue by a sysop who appears (to me at least) to support paid editing. I will be further investigating the motives behind Marcomgirl's other creations with regards to WP:NOTSPAM and if appropriate I will propose them for deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would, I presume, be me. I disagreed, strongly with a comment you made on the talk page of the creator here, and i said so. I did not think of it as an attack. Nor would I say that I support paid editing. If I could fully banish it, I would. Since no one can, I think it is best to induce (at least some) paid editors to comply with our terms by properly disclosing their status. As I understand the current policies and consensus on paid editing, once an editor does disclose properly, that editor should be treated like any other editor, with contributions evaluated on their own merits, regardless of who made them. That is what I ask for here. If this article had been created by a new editor with no indication of COI, or an established editor who tends to add pages about people with pop-culture affiliations, would the views in this discussion have been the same? I will grant that the notability here is not the most clearly established I have ever seen, and if this article is deleted the wiki will not tremble. But there seems to me a double standard at work here, and I think that there should not be. Perhaps I am mistaken. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While AfD is generally for debating the existence of an article, the process often provides good service as a place where sockpuppettry, spam, Copyvio, and other issuese are flushed out or brought to notice. I am of the general opinion that that the creator of this article in having declared her COI, is gaming the system. This does not man that I do not AGF - it means that I identify a clearly prmotional agenda for financial gain on the back of our volunteers' work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also don't see a double standard here: we delete plenty of articles created within the terms of use by volunteer editors who are not paid for violating Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. This can range from term paper like essays on one end advocating a specific point of view to clear promotion by a paid editor that has asked a question about how to get the article a client paid them to create indexed by a search engine and has a name that makes it clear they work in marketing. GNG alone is not enough to meet WP:N, and we delete plenty of term papers and dictionary definitions about things that would otherwise meet GNG. I don't see why we should make an exception to the policy for paid editors. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
deleteDoes not actually meet GNG. Very well written promo, but promo ne'ertheless.Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Even if the subject did meet the requirements of the General Notability Guideline, which she doesn't, that would only give the article the presumption of suitability for a stand-alone article. In other words; she is probably notable, but not necessarily so. However, the article would still fail the What Wikipedia is not policy. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion. Considering how weak the sources are and the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and that the article should be excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy, this topic does not merit an article. Per WP:CREATIVE, which is relevant here, the subject is not an important figure, is not widely cited by peers or successors, is not known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique, has not created a significant or well-known work, her work has not been the primary subject of an independent and notable work or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, her work has not become a significant monument, has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, has not won significant critical attention, and is not represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. The sourcing is exceptionally poor; the spin ref for example has only: "This photograph by Sheryl Nields", but is used to support the otherwise unsupported statement "Her early experimentation with a distorted perspective for her photograph of musician Beck featured in the July, 1994 issue of Spin was a precursor to her technique of using the photoshoot set simply as a starting point to capture portrait and fashion images from unique angles incorporating untraditional(sic) lighting elements". Mduvekot (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Not great notability, but seems sufficient; some high-profile work, some awards, referenced to reasonably prominent sources. Style does not seem overly promotional at this point. Thus, if the product is something that meets our requirements, I don't think we can bin it based on dislike of the originator - who, until and unless the WMF finally grows a pair re paid editing, has not stepped outside the bounds of expected behaviour. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment, have added some words including about awards received but would be more comfortable with more ie. are Neilds' work held by any notable galleries/museums? Coolabahapple (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep but tag for cleanup of promotional material. The notability of the subject, Nields, is the question, and it appears to me that Nields does meet general notability guidelines. Whether the creator of the article has acted in bad faith or has tried to game the system is not the question in this debate. Please take any issues about the conduct of the author to WP:ANI or to ArbCom. (I agree that she seems to be saying that because she declared her paid status, she should be given the same treatment as a volunteer editor, and that is nonsense. However, the question is the notability of Nields.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. the combination of promotional intent and weak sourcing is sufficient for deletion. Otherwise it would still be very borderline for ntoability. Inclusion in a book which the publisher called "notable photographers" is not evidence for notability. I see no evidence the awards are sufficiently major. DGG ( talk ) 14:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, DGG, inclusion in a book by a reputable publisher is precisely the kind of evidence we use every day to help establish notability at AfDs. It may not be sufficient evidence on its own, but it is not without value. it shows that a reputable publisher, aka a reliable source, thought her work worthy of note. We need not agree, but should not simply discount this. Indeed significant mention in a single book-length reliable source is often thought sufficient to establish notability with nothing more cited. Let us apply similar standards here. Any promotional content can be dealt with by normal editing, and in this case I am confident will be. The intent of the creator should not be relevant, only the notability and suitability of the subject, and the actual content of the article. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When you say reputable publisher, do you mean RotoVision, the publisher of books like 100 Awesome Hair Days and Color Me Wild (with over 60 amazing geometric colour-by-number designs)? Then what is your criterion for reputable? Mduvekot (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Delete per MB and TonyBallioni's analyses. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Her work is reviewed in several RS including LA Times and American Photo. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't call this a review. It's a gift guide (it even says so in the title) , not a critical assessment of an artist's work. I get that out of fear that we ourselves may have a bias against the author because she's a paid editor, we should exercise an an overabundance of caution to treat the article as we would any other; on it's merits alone. I have asked myself if I'm just arguing for deletion because I am opposed to paid editing. But no. The sources are the trivial kind of writing that even serious news outlets routinely engage in as entertainment, not serious journalism. Just because it has references to otherwise notable sources like the LA times, does not mean that we ought to consider the gift guide as on par with serious art criticism. We wouldn't cite the LA times horoscope to verify that I am, in their words, A subdued version of my warrior self, empathizing with people instead of battling with them, would we? Mduvekot (talk) 22:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mduvekot, A guide to buying a book from the LA Times is pretty significant since it's a major newspaper, not some rag. The LA Times article shows attention from the media and establishes notability along with other reliable sources cited in the article. The fact that Nields' work made it to the attention of the LA Times and the other photographic magazines is significant. You've already !voted, and I have read your opinion. I've expressed my own evaluation of the article and disagree with you. Your tone in the comment above is also bordering on sarcastic. I know you are using this tone to make a point: however, I would ask that you tone it down please. This is a discussion, not a snark-fest. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A book buying guide in a newspaper is normally a promotional feature, and had no relationship to a substantial book review. Arranging that something "made it to the attention of" a newspaper is a PR technique. Even so, the LA times did not give it a regular review. DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete in accordance with policy. This was created without disclosure by a paid editor, in violation of the Terms of Use of the Foundation and of our paid-contribution disclosure policy, which, in case anyone has forgotten, is a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations (the editor did eventually make disclosure some five days later, after Uncle Royasked her to). It was created for pay, for the sole purpose of promotion – that the tone is no longer promotional is immaterial, a neutrally-phrased advertisement is still an advertisement. This one, as DESiegel has noted on the talk-page, was also full of inaccuracies – what in plain English we would call "lies".
We don't permit undisclosed paid editing, and we strongly discourage COI editing of any kind; the only practical way we have of doing that is to undo COI edits. Notability is irrelevant here (though I'm not seeing it). Nuke it, but without prejudice to re-creation if a bona-fide volunteer editor can establish notability. Isn't that how the OrangeMoody articles were handled? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That the tone is no longer promotional is highly materiel, indeed it makes the motives of the original creator totally irrelevant. A a neutrally-phrased advertisement might better be described as "an objective article" -- it isn't an advertisement at all. Inaccuracies can be cleared up by normal editing, and indeed would have been by now except for this AfD, as I was unwilling to be accrued of whitewashing by following up on my challenges while this AfD is in progress. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DESiegel, I was thinking outside Wikipedia, of those advertisements by companies in the financial pages of serious newspapers, "the company has made profits of £n million. A dividend of x pence per share has been declared". It's neutral in tone, but it's still an advertisement even if it doesn't say "Baz is best, buy Baz" – and is sometimes headed "advertisement" to make clear that it's not part of the editorial text of the newspaper. We don't allow advertisements, even neutral ones. As for motivation, it is fundamental: a proper Wikipedia article is created with the intent of informing; this was created with the intent to promote, and – it seems – also to deceive. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[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.