Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Nitke

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Paul August ☎ 03:36, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barbara Nitke

No-name photographer who filed a federal lawsuit and lost - big deal. Non-notable and a vanity page. --BrownHornet21 04:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep seems notable enough, doesn't read like vanity. --TheMidnighters 07:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per the above. Sandstein 11:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, being a published author implies notability. --DrTorstenHenning 16:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Votes below this line merged from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Barabara Nitke -Splash 22:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete.--Exir Kamalabadi^{Criticism is welcomed!} 12:01, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The entry is extensive and detailed, but still self-promotion of an utterly insignificant figure. Dottore So 16:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable, really. Losing a court case doesn't increase one's notability. Hell, winning it rarely does either. -Splash 16:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete Perhaps in needs merging with something else. Hers was /is a significant case in an evolving area of law (at least in the US). -Zandr 17:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. 8200 google hits, and 10 news.google hits indicate notability. Her notable lawsuit makes her notable.
• RESPONSE. What's so notable about the suit? It's not the first lawsuit to challenge the CDA, not even among the first. The entry is merely an extensive vanity page. Google hits are irrelevant.--BrownHornet21 20:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The case received national press coverage. IMO, that estalishes notability. Pburka 20:41, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (crossed out after merge to avoid duplicate vote, original keep vote is above). Comment I'm not sure what happened with this listing but there seems to be two entries somehow, or something, you'll find other keep votes here:Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Barbara Nitke including my first. Wikipedia is not paper, and this photographer is much more notable than some other artists that are documented here (Michael Paul Oman-Reagan, Vincent Clervi and much much more). Being in such a particular field and having art exhibitions satisfies notability as an artist, regardless of the court case. --TheMidnighters 22:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem with the two listings is that this entry (listed on vfd) is misspelled as Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Barabara Nitke, and the entry linked from the article is spelled correctly. --TheMidnighters 22:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I have merged them. Could you please strike one or the other of your votes? Thanks. -Splash 22:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Well-written article. The lawsuit raises important contemporary issues. I am inclined to vote keep, but will first try my informal test: I'm going to look her up in an online database, to which I have access courtesy of my local public library, that contains the full content of The New York Times. If she is mentioned, I will vote keep. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. New York Times, July 28, 2005, p. 3, "An Online Artist Challenges Obscenity Law." She has had pictures in shows that have gotten brief news-item notices in The New York Times: September 5, 2003 p. 30, ""BOYS OF SUMMER," ClampArt... Standing out among the crowd of pictures by more than two dozen photographers ... men in leather, by Barbara Nitke...".I don't know whether it's the same person or not, but there have also been pictures published in The New York Times that have been credited to someone named Barbara Nitke, e.g. "Photo: Moira, left, with her dogs, Roxy and Tooter, on the documentary series 'Showdog Moms & Dads.' (Photo by Barbara Nitke/Bravo)", March 30, 2005, p. 3. Finally, I don't accept the "professor test," but she is a professor, and being president of the Camera Club of New York together with the other things would seem to make her clearly more notable than the average professor. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, Yes, that is the same Barbara Nitke. I believe she is the only pro photog using that name.--Outlander 21:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Also, two mentions in The Boston Globe. January 9, 2004, p. 3 is the Go! column which mentions "the Fetish Fair Fleamarket... starts tonight with a reading and slide show from author Barbara Nitke, who will be discussing and showing images from her book 'Kiss of Fire'" Another is a CD whose cover picture was "taken by the controversial Mapplethorpian S&M photographer Barbara Nitke." That seems to demonstrate some degree of notability. (Where is the Watch & Ward Society when you really need it?) Dpbsmith (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep She's well known in photography circles, and her loss in this lawsuit was big news in censorship circles because it was a severe undercut to Miller v. California 413 U.S. 12 (1973) and created a bizarre burden of proof standard for chilling speech. She is well-known in the SM and erotic photography circles. Jessamyn 22:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per above posters. Hooper_X
• Keep This photographer is well known and the lawsuit got a lot of press. 68.20.179.193
• Keep Much work. Notable. --Vaergoth 08:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep If only for the photography, which is well known and widely appreciated. The lawsuit is an interesting sidenote. --Outlander 15:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Not only highly notable both legally and artistically, but an extremely well written article IMO. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:15, 2005 August 22 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.