Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Shields (2nd nomination)

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 keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Shields

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

Biography of a photographer who seems to be better known for causing controversy than for any skill in taking pictures. If this seems familiar, it's because it was recently deleted at AfD. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep New sources seems to support notability including this substantial article from LAWeekly but also the others I've added to the article.--v/r - T P 19:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per newly available sourcing found by TParis. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources show enough to meet WP:GNG.Edinburgh Wanderer 20:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the sourcing added by TParis. The subject now has significant coverage in reliable third party sources establishing the subject's notability. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable. SL93 (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changes to article have addressed reasons for first deletion. --Jayron32 23:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Interesting earlier nomination: Photographer with "no formal training" who has been involved in a series of events which have made the news, but not due to the quality of his photographs. First, it's only recently that many among photographers who are undeniably significant -- and I'm thinking here of Parnassus: members of Magnum and the like -- have had formal training. Secondly, the quality of photographs is in the eye of the beholder, or in that of the (daft) art establishment, or both -- but anyway, since this is en:WP, in the eye of "reliable sources". Though actually quality is by the way: no matter how crappy the work, if it's [Wikipedia-style] "notable", that's enough. ¶ I'd agree that screenfuls of gush about this person in the dismal Daily Mail constitute solid evidence of Wikipedia-style "notability", but I hope that the Wail is not treated as a "reliable source". -- Hoary (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This individual meets to basic requirements of the general notability guideline. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:49, 29 November 2011 (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.