Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellen Stagg

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 delete. Article subject is found to lack the notability required in WP:NARTIST. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Stagg

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

The subject of this article about an erotic photographer, one among the approximately 50,000 active, professional, American photographers, probably lacks notability. -The Gnome (talk) 12:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant coverage to to demonstrate her notability per WP:CREATIVE. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails PHOTOGRAPHER & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. The Gnome (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Gnome (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a good example judging a book by its cover and the failure to do WP:BEFORE. I did my research and found three decent mentions in news and books in five minutes. I see more out there. The article is a mess, but why not improve it rather than delete? Notability (GNG)is established by sourcing. 104.163.154.101 (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please point out by what criteria should we judge an article except on the basis of its contents? The content is the only thing we can go by; there is no "cover" in this "book". As to the work necessary before submitting the article for deletion, please rest assured that it was done. Also, a discussion was started in the article's Talk Page; not surprisingly, it drew no participants. Moreover, the article has been tagged as lacking notability since 2009! Your opinion is fully respected but please do not make assumptions about other editors. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Gnome: check out WP:NEXIST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointers, Northamerica1000. As the one who opened this deletion proposal, I'm afraid I already commented too much. I'm taking my leave. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below are a few sources. Fair warning: some of the sources listed below have soft nude images. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Only the Huffington Post mention passes the criteria for reliable sources for a WP:BLP. An "Upper West Side website", a mention in a book about "Brooklyn regulars", and the listing in a mass exhibition are not eligible to support the notion of the subject's notability. But, of course, enough editors may believe that the article should nonetheless be kept. -The Gnome (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow discussion of the sources presented here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- lacks reliable sources to back up notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I cleaned up some of the references and added more as suggested by Northamerica1000 earlier on this page. The subject passes WP:GNG because of the numerous reliable sources WP:RS which contain significant coverage of her. Lacypaperclip (talk) 11:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apart from the mention in Huffington post, I don't see any other reliable sources talking about her work. Sure, there are local self published websites. But hardly any reliable sources. Artists require critical acclaim but the subject doesn't seem to satisfy the criteria for WP:NARTIST.--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:ARTIST. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "Meet the Regulars" source is good, but most of the source list is non-authoritative cruft (gallery sites, broken links, etc.) Agricola44 (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2017 (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.