Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank worth

:{{la|Frank worth}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Frank worth}})

The author's original edit summary pretty much sums up my objection: {{cquote|created a UNIQUELY written reference page (no info was previously available on Frank Worth the photographer)}}

This is pure original research, and since no sources are available (as admitted by the creator), Worth fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG as well. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 22:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• I call shenanigans on that nomination. Frank Worth, by the same editor, was deleted for being a copyright violation. Clearly something existed about this person. According to the deleted edit history it is this:
• {{cite web|url=http://capitalart.com/?page_id=124|title=Frank Worth|publisher=Capital Art|work=Photographers}}
• We cannot have it both ways. Either the biographical text existed, in which case there is some biographical material available, or there wasn't a copyright violation. Checking the deleted edits I confirm that there was, in fact, a copyright violation. Uncle G (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• Ah. Wasn't aware of that. In any case, I still think that Worth fails BIO and GNG due to lack of in-depth coverage. The biographical information that was cited in the previous article is from a company trying to sell his art (although that wasn't disputed). Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 23:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• The content itself is the proof that the photographer was on scene, capturing images of noted celebrities. I am the editor and I apologize for the for the initial violation. I selected the wrong draft for upload. I didn't mean to commit a violation. As the creator of the post, I would like to participate in this discussion to address and speedily correct any issues. Namlerep (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2012 (PST).
• My chief concerns are with notability: that is, how much Frank Worth himself has been discussed in reliable sources that have no vested interest in him. Ideally, all article topics should meet the notability guideline. Would you be able to provide any web sites, books, etc. that are independent of Frank Worth and give detailed coverage of him? Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 00:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Or, in other words: Where did you get your knowledge of the subject from? Cite your sources. (The ones cited don't cover what you've written.) If this is the result of your primary research, and not from already published biographies and articles, then it doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia and writing it directly into an encyclopaedia is as wrong on the WWW as it is in your library. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. You need to show that there's supporting, already published, material to create an encyclopaedic biography of this person in his own right, rather than merely a footnote or an aside in another topic. Uncle G (talk) 12:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Question. I'm most interested in photography. I am little interested in Marilyn Monroe. But let me ask about the latter. However surprised I may be that, decades after her death, Monroe retains a fanatical following (of fans and "students"), she does have one. Predictably, this is reflected in Wikipedia. We read in this article: Frank had a long and close relationship with Marilyn Monroe, his most famous subject. The relationship included a secretive love affair that the couple arduously concealed. Frank was one of the last people Marilyn reached out to before her unfortunate death. Frank took many photos of Marilyn before she achieved stardom with her first film “The Asphalt Jungle.” Most commonly, however, most of the taken images were kept private by Frank Worth[2]. In fact, Frank admitted to his affair with Marilyn Monroe only months before he died. Now, any verifiable (or indeed merely rumored) affair between her and anybody else is certain to be written up in the large and still growing literature on Monroe. So which disinterested, reliable source writes about this? -- Hoary (talk) 13:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

:*That would definitely help contribute to notability. However, that information may be the result of primary research (Google Books search for [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22frank+worth%22+%22marilyn+monroe%22+affair&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1#q=%22frank+worth%22+%22marilyn+monroe%22+affair&hl=en&tbo=1&tbm=bks&filter=0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=8e946f76f184ba0d&biw=1920&bih=869 "frank worth" "marilyn monroe" affair] brings up no results that would be considered relevant to Wikipedia). Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 23:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete. I see no evidence that he received substantial long-term coverage from published secondary sources with a reputation for reliable coverage. A copyvio of capitalart.com doesn't prove anything for notability purposes; that website doesn't look like a reliable source to me. Nyttend (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Userfy (Changing to "Keep", see below.) At first I was all set to say delete and salt; the article reads like badly written fantasy or fiction. However, to my surprise I found books [http://www.amazon.com/Worth-Exposing-Hollywood-Unpublished-Photographs/dp/0954370309] and exhibitions of his photographs [http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/home_blog/2010/04/-frank-worths-classic-hollywood-photographs-marilyn-monroe-elizabeth-taylor-at-art-artifact.html] [http://giftarium.com/frank_worth.aspx] [http://www.guyhepner.com/pages/news/rare-photography-from-frank-worth-available] suggesting that people in the art world take him seriously. Further searching found plenty of reliable source reporting about him, for example the [http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/315851931.html?dids=315851931:315851931&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Mar+23%2C+2003&author=Reed+Johnson&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&desc=The+Oscars%3B+Candidly+glamorous%3B+Frank+Worth+brought+fans+closer+to+stars+of+the+golden+age+with+his+personal+style+of+photography.+A+show+presents+long-forgotten+images.&pqatl=google Los Angeles Times] and even the [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2354575.stm BBC]. The article in its present form is hopeless, but the subject is clearly notable. I would suggest that the article be taken out of mainspace while the author rewrites it in encyclopedic form (hints: no purple prose, no puffery, nothing that you can't verify, and don't refer to him as "Frank"). I will be glad to help you with a rewrite. --MelanieN (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
• Changing my opinion to Keep. I just did a complete rewrite of the article, putting it into encyclopedic style and adding Reliable Source references. It needs expansion (as long as the material added can be confirmed) but I believe it now clearly demonstrates the notability of the subject. --MelanieN (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

::I also moved the article to Frank Worth (capital letter for the last name). --MelanieN (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep: Notability demonstrated by sources found and added by MelanieN. Well done. --joe decker^{talk to me} 15:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

: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.