Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ForestWander Nature Photography
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] ForestWander Nature Photography
A father and son company that takes photos of rural West Virginia and that gives many of them away via the internet. They were once a finalist in one category of a competition, and I'm willing to believe that there was once an article about them in the Charleston Gazette (although either its server or my browser refuses to display this). And -- plastic at the ready? -- you may choose to purchase the prints too, via the links thoughtfully provided in the article.
However, Wikipedia is not a web directory, the company doesn't seem to have won any competitions, there's no mention of any exhibitions or substantial coverage in any magazines (let alone book-length publication), and it all seems of very minor note; unless of course you want free screensavers of rural West Virginia, in which case Google will no doubt locate them for you.
Moreover, the only contributor of substance to this article has been User:Forestwanderer. I start to suspect COI.
I prodded this article on 6 June. Forestwanderer proceeded to make a number of edits to the page, which to me indicated a desire to keep it; I therefore removed the prod notice myself.
The last of the edits by Forestwanderer has a summary pointing people to further justifications to be read on the talk page. Yes, do take a look: it's quite revealing. -- Hoary (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Seems to be blatent WP:ADVERT and WP:COI. Thetrick (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete there is some notability. A local newspaper article (the link worked when I tried it) And finalist in a Nature Conservancy photo competition is not nothing. But it is not enough to justify an article. It may be that this photographer will gain enough attention to merit an article at some future date.Elan26 (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Elan26
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I don't see notability here and this is blatant advertising and a conflict of interest to boot. freshacconcispeaktome 11:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per all. Johnbod (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Personally I would have db-spammed it at first review since it's blatant advertising, and the author is same as company name, so never NPOV. The democratic way will do too. Shoombooly (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
