Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Perelet

{{ns:0|B}}

:{{la|Victoria Perelet}} ([{{fullurl:Victoria Perelet|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Perelet}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

• Minimal Google hits
• Article unreferenced
• Website provides little to substantiate claims
• Appears article written by individual named in article

ttonyb1 (talk) 03:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Week keep, for now. The article has only existed for a day, so the argument that only one user has edited it (made by user:Hoary in their update summary) doesn't carry much weight. Review and relist in a week or two if not improved in the meantime. Simon Dodd (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

:*Comment/question I think you're referring to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victoria_Perelet&diff=264969779&oldid=264969027 this edit summary]. NB (i) the fact that it was substantially written by a user called Perelet, and not the fact that it was written by one user, was my reason for adding a template; and (ii) this was a "COI" template, not an AfD template. (I do think that AfD is merited, but mostly for other reasons.) However, you may have some other edit of mine in mind. ¶ I don't understand what you mean by "Review and relist". Do you propose that this AfD should be speedily terminated as unfair or premature or whatever but with the announced possibility of a second AfD within a period of as little as two weeks? If so, well, I think that for a second AfD to be opened within two weeks of the closing of a first would have the second nominator hammered for boneheadedness at best and disruptiveness at worst. But possibly I've overlooked some subclause within a relevant policy page. -- Hoary (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Guys, I'm trying to collect informations about famous people in Perelet family (see my profile). I'm trying to put seeds that other people can expand. Those are not ordinary people and mostly known from printed media. My other page about Alexey Perelet who was test pilot who 1st lifted in the air TU-95 Bear plane is also marked. Please have patience history is made by individuals and you guys seem to not like that.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perelet (talk • contribs) 05:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

:Well, you don't even say what Victoria is. You have to use English, write complete sentences, and tell something that someone who is not already familiar about the subject can you to tell what you are writing about. "Victoria Perelet is an English photographer who was born in the Soviet Union." "Victoria Perelet is an English Springer Spaniel owned by Donald Trump." "Victoria Perelet was the first female truck driver in Sierra Leone to run the stop sign at the intersection of Main and Pierce streets."

:Who is she? Why is she in Wikipedia? What'd she do besides get herself born in the Soviet Union in 1962? Please, please, please, write sentences in English that you could turn in in a paper--this is not a repository for press releases! Delete until it's known who she is--and the article doesn't say. --KP Botany (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Everybody.

I did some cleanup. Sure entry was created by either student or kid. Anyway

• Birth Year. I have Jade Mag in our library - in interview it says 1969, original article had 1962 (I fixed to what interview says)
• Cleaned up list of articles/publications, added ISBN's. Only for ones that we have in library
• WP guys - your ISBN page does not work (I did cross checked ISBN's on Amazon)
• Somebody please add earlier publications.
• English - Check this out:http://www.amazon.com/English-Second-cking-Language-Effectively/dp/sitb-next/031214329X
  Have a little bit of respect
• KP your military background screams loudly:) But be @#$%^&* reasonable.
• Keep, contact photographer to make sure stuff is right.

Kurtpb (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

::Be reasonable about what, allowing the biography of a living person to look like a crappy press release? I edited it a bit for grammar. If you continue to write it, please do use complete sentences, and write in the style of an encyclopedia, rather than bulleted points. It's still hard to figure out what she's notable for. --KP Botany (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

:::KP is always the voice of sweet reason, or anyway harsh reason. But maybe Kurtpb has a point: KP, do try to be harshly reasonable with old cynics like me rather than with NooBs. -- Hoary (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

::::Rose-cous panie my-orzhu. Okay, I could have said it nicer, like this: It's hard to understand the article because it is written more like a press release with bullet points than like an article. If you use complete sentences and take the time to write the article as if it were an encyclopedia article it could prevent a nomination for deletion in the first place by making the article easier to understand and more comfortable to read. It would also make it easier for other interested Wikipedia editors to ask that the article be kept, because they could see at a glance that is an encyclopedia article of the sort that belongs on Wikipedia. Press releases, by their nature, are meant to be scanned for facts or information, not to be read, as an encyclopedia article is. An encyclopedia article tells a complete story as a formal essay on a topic, including the necessary grammar and syntax of complete thoughts. --KP Botany (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: The "article" is indeed starting to look like an article. But listing individual book covers smacks of desperation. It's something I've never felt the urge to do in any of "my" articles. Here for example is a moderately known photographer; the cover shown is of a book that's entirely his work (and an award-winning book to boot). To me, a few covers and a few articles here and there just don't add up to notability. -- Hoary (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment:
  
• Thanks for edits KP! There only few published photographers worldwide who pushed Goth/Latex from basement redeye/snapshots in to mainstream press. That’s rather big deal for some communities. Not that I’m part of it - it just happened that I’m doing thesis on that
  .

• Hoary, ‘press release’ (or just too pure statements) is what it looked originally and fricked me also – I changed that.

• I’ll add/update as time goes and will try to add more coverage of culture.
  

PS. Most of contributors (both fashion designers and photographers are still alive – whole thing started only 15-20 years ago)

• Original submitter – please get in touch with me on birth date.

Kurtpb (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

:Also, be sure to move it into your user space if it does get deleted. --KP Botany (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest" Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article although other problems with the article arising from a conflict of interest may be valid criteria for deletion."] Anarchangel (talk) 02:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, this appears to be one of the most abused policies on Wikipedia, nominating articles for deletion because of a conflict of interest, even though the COI policy clearly states that it is an insufficient reason. This one, though, is just one problem in a list of alleged problems with the article. --KP Botany (talk) 05:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment

Addressing original Concerns

• Minimal Google hits

107 (11 pages) google hits on same individual "1st lastname" (no other names) with 1st GOOG link hard pinned to individual name -> studio name (also on MSN & YHOO) – no 1st/last name in page tags or html, what GOOG knows?

• Article unreferenced

Are ISBN’s not enough, one can add links to Amazon or Magazine web pages referring books & mags (who needs that - no content on Amazon pages?)

• Website provides little to substantiate claims

True, more info in other hits – do we care about website?

• Appears article written by individual named in article

Look at his/her other entries – relative or student is going over family tree. Also see other comments on COI

Kurtpb (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as n-n. Whenever I see individual covers listed in the bio of a photographer, I see desperate clutching at straws. Only minor discussion is cited for this photographer, who's had no books or solo exhibitions and whose known work is limited to just a few pages in some magazines. -- Hoary (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 07:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. The article and references suggest no more than a regular photographer who has had pictures published in various magazines, and the odd spread of several pictures together. There is no suggestion of her having contributed to the art of photography, and nothing we see constitutes "substantial coverage in secondary sources". TrulyBlue (talk) 09:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I still don't know what she did. Also, frankly, I shoot people with large format cameras, and I bet I use a larger format than she does. --KP Botany (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• Note:I find language of this comment unethical and not professional. Please try to restrict your comments to subject of this article. AnneSholher (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Victoria Perelet is icon of Alt fashion photography. One of few professional photographers who promotes Alt fashion. Her work pretty much speaks for herself. Published by most prestige European publishers and has been displayed in boutiques/galleries in Europe and US – google has planty links to confirm. AnneSholher (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2009 (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.