The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Klaus Thymann – endorsed. Any attempts at a rewrite should be done in userspace and only with the inclusion of multiple independent and reliable sources as per policy. – Shereth22:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
This is a photographer who is known and there is no reason why he should not have a page. I see the previous deletions were because it was thought to be spam, but the references I will put will be to his own website, so that would not be spam. Please help me out here. I'm a big fan of Klaus Thymann. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Photographynyc (talk • contribs)
Endorse – I agree with the reasons for the past deletions. I'm afraid, after briefly searching, that even if a new version is created that is neutral and not advertorial, I don't think it passes for notability (which I think was also why it was deleted a couple times per WP:CSD#A7. –MuZemike17:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a DRV matter. Just write an article with independently (third party) sourced claims of notability; the subject's own website probably won't do, although, for example, the official sites for the awards he's allegedly won probably would. Speedy deletion is not a bar to creation of a legit article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion at this point there appears to be no reason that a speedy deletion is not appropriate. The article should probably be next recreated in user space, allowing a determination if there is enough there to justify a move to mainspace based on the presence of reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G11. The article's most recent incarnation read like an advertisement and contained "weasel words" and "peacock words." If notability in reliable sources can be shown, a new article about this individual may be acceptable. But the speedy deletion should not be overturned. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is a determined promotion effort going on here - this article has been created five times, by authors such as Klaus Thymann (talk·contribs), Afgmanagement (talk·contribs) and Afgintern (talk·contribs). AFG Management of NYC is the agency that represents Thymann. The last one was deleted only a week ago; the author Afgintern was rather disingenuous about his connection: "I don't know or even work for this person, I am just trying to create pages for photographers". I think this new "big fan of Klaus Thymann" Photographynyc (talk·contribs) is the agency PR department trying again; they have not yet got the message that WP is not a free promotion service. JohnCD (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources I have found for notability are project-pressure.org, hybrids-project.com. I also want to talk about his solo gallery shows and awards won. I didn't see any of the other pages created, but if you give me a chance, you will see that it's encyclopedic and not advertising. If you don't like it, you can delete it again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Photographynyc (talk • contribs) 15:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion A review of the Google cache shows that this was correctly deleted as {{db-g11}}. The creator, if s/he wishes to recreate the article, should bring this article back to deletion review only after starting a userspace draft that includes plenty of reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. Cunard (talk) 07:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
