481:
the square metre.) But anyway, he's not notable. Neither, I dare say, are most of the thousands of actors and the like who have articles in
Knowledge. But just as Knowledge doesn't limit its thespian coverage to the conventionally great (Jean Gabin), the great "characters" (Shelley Duvall), and the mere heart-throbs (Keanu Reeves), but instead allows squillions of articles (mostly poorly sourced, it must be said) on entirely humdrum actors, and does so to the general benefit of the interested public, so Knowledge would be better if it had many more modest, well sourced articles on workmanlike photographers. Producing photographs for over 30 books is not astonishing, but neither is it easy. I can't be bothered to examine the recent history of this article, but as it is now it deserves to stay; indeed, I wish there were more like it.
382:. Likewise, having taken some pictures for the National Trust website may be an indication of notability but does not prove it. The basic problem at that moment is that there is no reliable independent source for biographical information about the person. If there are more reviews of his work, or if it can be shown that he is widely referenced in photography circles then we might get close to shpowing
360:
480:
but a highly competent craftsman, serving
Weidenfeld & Nicolson and the National Trust and others with what they and the public want. (And it's not bad either; cf the luridly colored, saccharine landscapes of some great, great photographic landscape hacks who have companies sell their stuff by
421:
Like I said, I'm willing to be convinced, but at the moment there is a review of about 4 sentences from the independent, and one hidden behind a pay wall (and neither are even used as references for any text in the article, so I have no idea how in depth the chicago tribune review is). Please, if
475:
How true, how very true. Meers' photographs are not in the permanent collection of the V&A (a large photographic collection that's conveniently searchable online). They may well not be in any other museum or art collection either. No Turner Prize nomination for Nick. The highest price at
378:. At present I am dubious over the sources being used here. A search of amazon or barnes & noble does not show that someone is notable, particularly when you look at the sales ranks of the books. It may be an indication of notability, but it doesn't meet any of the recommendations of
502:
He has an established reputation in his field as evidenced by the number of books where he is the co/author and cumulative other mentions/reviews. Those working in the visual arts seem to have a higher bar applied to them than that in e.g.
169:
300:
350:
This photographer seems to be notable as demonstrated by the large number of books of his photography he has published and which are widely available through online bookstores such as Barnes and Noble
356:. He has not just provided the photography for a book - he is one of the authors and the books are about his photography - there is a big difference. There is also press coverage of his books: see
266:
Note that it's not that he have written 30+ books. It's that his photographs have been used in 30+ books , and I don't think this is enough to make a professional photographer notable. --
252:. With 30+ published books to his name (including on the front cover as a co-author, not just as a contributor), I believe he is notable and worthy of inclusion on Knowledge. —
124:
476:
abebooks.com right now for one of his books is $ 100 (cf $ 7500 for
Tillmans and $ 20,220 for Cartier-Bresson). Not even any space on my shelves for his books. He's not an
531:
226:
163:
278:
Many of the books (e.g., the books listed in the article) are books where he is a co-author, not just a contributor. There is a big difference. —
473:
Having "produced photographs for over 30 books" doesn't seems astonishing. Good photographer? Yes. Notable? Not from what is said on the article.
357:
129:
17:
97:
92:
101:
184:
200:
Notability. From the article, it seems it's just a good photographer doing his work. Main claim of notability is that "
151:
84:
606:
574:
was not followed correctly in this case. In particular, under section 3, it would have been appropriate to add a
36:
354:
605:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
331:
You implicitly suggested that it be sourced (see above) and references are always helpful for verifiability. —
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
422:
there are multiple reviews, then either add them to the article or stick them here so they can be assessed.
145:
351:
141:
591:
562:
544:
521:
494:
466:
431:
416:
395:
370:
340:
324:
312:
287:
273:
261:
241:
215:
66:
208:" doesn't seems astonishing. Good photographer? Yes. Notable? Not from what is said on the article.
578:
tag before proposing deletion for this article. I would request that the original proposer follows
558:
427:
391:
177:
191:
404:
379:
366:
587:
508:
412:
336:
308:
283:
257:
237:
49:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
579:
571:
444:
490:
318:
267:
209:
88:
157:
554:
504:
423:
387:
537:
514:
362:
583:
408:
332:
304:
279:
253:
233:
118:
383:
486:
443:
Google news search up top shows articles mentioning him and his photographs.
80:
72:
317:
Is it notable? The
National Trust holds many photographs of many artist. --
386:. I'm willing to be convinced, but at the moment I'm not seeing it.
599:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
407:#3 applies. There is a body of work with multiple reviews. —
114:
110:
106:
176:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
609:). No further edits should be made to this page.
582:before nominating any further AfDs in future. —
227:list of Photography-related deletion discussions
204:", but it unfortunately goes unsourced. Having "
202:The National Trust holds many of his photographs
190:
8:
221:
530:: This debate has been included in the
225:: This debate has been included in the
553:Seems both notable and encyclopedic...
206:produced photographs for over 30 books
532:list of Visual arts-related deletions
7:
299:. I have added a reference for the
24:
511:. This should not be the case.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
592:12:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
563:02:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
545:21:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
522:21:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
495:08:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
467:00:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
432:21:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
417:16:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
396:00:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
371:19:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
341:23:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
325:18:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
313:18:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
288:23:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
274:18:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
262:18:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
242:17:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
216:15:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
67:03:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
626:
602:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
44:The result was
570:. I believe that
547:
322:
271:
244:
230:
213:
617:
604:
577:
540:
526:
517:
463:
460:
457:
454:
451:
448:
320:
269:
231:
211:
195:
194:
180:
132:
122:
104:
64:
34:
625:
624:
620:
619:
618:
616:
615:
614:
613:
607:deletion review
600:
575:
538:
515:
461:
458:
455:
452:
449:
446:
137:
128:
95:
79:
76:
60:
56:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
623:
621:
612:
611:
595:
594:
584:Jonathan Bowen
576:{{notability}}
565:
548:
524:
497:
469:
438:
437:
436:
435:
434:
409:Jonathan Bowen
373:
345:
344:
343:
333:Jonathan Bowen
328:
327:
305:Jonathan Bowen
301:National Trust
294:
293:
292:
291:
290:
280:Jonathan Bowen
254:Jonathan Bowen
246:
245:
198:
197:
134:
130:AfD statistics
75:
70:
58:
54:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
622:
610:
608:
603:
597:
596:
593:
589:
585:
581:
573:
569:
566:
564:
560:
556:
552:
549:
546:
543:
542:
541:
533:
529:
525:
523:
520:
519:
518:
510:
506:
501:
498:
496:
492:
488:
484:
479:
474:
470:
468:
465:
464:
442:
439:
433:
429:
425:
420:
419:
418:
414:
410:
406:
402:
399:
398:
397:
393:
389:
385:
381:
377:
374:
372:
368:
364:
361:
358:
355:
352:
349:
346:
342:
338:
334:
330:
329:
326:
323:
316:
315:
314:
310:
306:
302:
298:
295:
289:
285:
281:
277:
276:
275:
272:
265:
264:
263:
259:
255:
251:
248:
247:
243:
239:
235:
228:
224:
220:
219:
218:
217:
214:
207:
203:
193:
189:
186:
183:
179:
175:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
143:
140:
139:Find sources:
135:
131:
126:
120:
116:
112:
108:
103:
99:
94:
90:
86:
82:
78:
77:
74:
71:
69:
68:
65:
63:
62:
61:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
601:
598:
567:
550:
536:
535:
527:
513:
512:
499:
482:
477:
472:
471:Nomination:
445:
440:
403:. I believe
400:
375:
347:
296:
249:
222:
205:
201:
199:
187:
181:
173:
166:
160:
154:
148:
138:
53:
52:
51:
45:
43:
31:
28:
405:WP:CREATIVE
380:WP:CREATIVE
164:free images
509:WP:ATHLETE
353:and Amazon
81:Nick Meers
73:Nick Meers
57:rbitrarily
580:WP:BEFORE
572:WP:BEFORE
555:Modernist
424:Quantpole
388:Quantpole
234:• Gene93k
363:Jenafalt
125:View log
568:Comment
505:WP:BAND
478:artiste
401:Comment
376:Comment
319:Damiens
297:Comment
268:Damiens
210:Damiens
170:WP refs
158:scholar
98:protect
93:history
142:Google
102:delete
487:Hoary
485:. --
462:Focus
185:JSTOR
146:books
119:views
111:watch
107:links
16:<
588:talk
559:talk
551:Keep
534:. –
528:Note
500:Keep
491:talk
483:Keep
441:Keep
428:talk
413:talk
392:talk
384:WP:N
367:talk
359:and
348:Keep
337:talk
309:talk
303:. —
284:talk
258:talk
250:Keep
238:talk
223:Note
178:FENS
152:news
115:logs
89:talk
85:edit
46:keep
507:or
321:.rf
270:.rf
232:--
212:.rf
192:TWL
127:•
123:– (
590:)
561:)
539:Ty
516:Ty
493:)
430:)
415:)
394:)
369:)
339:)
311:)
286:)
260:)
240:)
229:.
172:)
117:|
113:|
109:|
105:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
48:.
586:(
557:(
489:(
459:m
456:a
453:e
450:r
447:D
426:(
411:(
390:(
365:(
335:(
307:(
282:(
256:(
236:(
196:)
188:·
182:·
174:·
167:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
144:(
136:(
133:)
121:)
83:(
59:0
55:A
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.