Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Biggs

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. 2 deletes, 3 keeps, no strong evidence either way thus overall no consensus Nja²⁴⁷ 12:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Biggs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Mostly promotion (created by public relations company of which Biggs is a client). His most notable achievement seems to be winning a category in Wildlife photographer of the year. All winning, runner up and highly commended images in this competition are displayed in the Natural History Museum. Considering that only three of the overall winners of the 45 competitions have Wikipedia articles, this hardly makes the photographers of all of these noteworthy enough to have a wikipedia page. Similarly, having images used in an advertising campaign is not sufficiently notable. God Emperor (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Firstly, his success in the BBC Wildlife Photographer of the Year awards, his image displayed in the Natural History Museum and his work used by Banana Republic all point towards notability. Secondly, he has had press coverage, including in the Daily Mirror and the Independent. Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 13:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Weak keep Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC) But there's some coverage so including it doesn't hurt. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: the claims made in the article mostly lack evidence or are unimpressive, but this article at the Independent does have some value. -- Hoary (talk) 10:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable. Appears to be for advertisement, not encyclopedic. rmosler (talk) 06:23, 25 June 2009 (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.