Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naresh Verlander
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 20:56 (UTC)
[edit] Naresh Verlander
Non-notable/ vanity - see Naresh verlander (sic) above Cutler 11:05, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. 20yo photographer of rock bands. His work looks good, but hardly encyclopedic. Andrewa 11:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Author - This is fair enough, and I must admit knowing him personally, however, might I point out Andrew Kendall's entry? Subsequent research from his site shows that Andrew Kendall began at the age of 19. I did not want to add personal spin to the article, but within my own experience he was a tremendous influence to the photography team at King's College London during his time there and has made a deep impression on at least the twenty photographers that he has worked with and trained personally there while rising to the rank of Photo Editor within his first year. That is only one instance of his influence, and for a man of 20, is already impressive, in my humble opinion. On the other hand, if it is commonly agreed that the 'notability,' (which, without malicious intent, seems to be based here on a Google search), of Naresh is not worthy of Wikipedia then perhaps it is too early for an entry? --193.61.200.140 12:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: The problem with the analogy to Andrew Kendall (and I could add several other photographers, and many other artists, to this list... maybe I'll just cite J. S. Bach as one) is that you're asking us to predict the future. Neither of these was encyclopedic at age 20, except in hindsight. Yes, the Google test has its limits, and we have a chronic problem keeping to these and explaining them to enthusiastic newcomers. One often proposed unofficial motto of Wikipedia is we do the Googling for you. Googling is not just a matter of designing a search, most of the skill in using Google is deciding how significant the results are (like most sources of information). Speaking for myself, I often use offline sources and think this is important. No change of vote. Andrewa 17:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Author - This is fair enough, and I must admit knowing him personally, however, might I point out Andrew Kendall's entry? Subsequent research from his site shows that Andrew Kendall began at the age of 19. I did not want to add personal spin to the article, but within my own experience he was a tremendous influence to the photography team at King's College London during his time there and has made a deep impression on at least the twenty photographers that he has worked with and trained personally there while rising to the rank of Photo Editor within his first year. That is only one instance of his influence, and for a man of 20, is already impressive, in my humble opinion. On the other hand, if it is commonly agreed that the 'notability,' (which, without malicious intent, seems to be based here on a Google search), of Naresh is not worthy of Wikipedia then perhaps it is too early for an entry? --193.61.200.140 12:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: Wikipedia is a tertiary source of information. I.e. we have to rely upon the general world to have already documented and discussed a figure and to some great degree before we include him. The point is that we are never supposed to be the first place to talk of someone or something. Thus, we have to wait for a photographer to have already made a name for himself or herself. It may be likely that this person will become notable, but he is not at present. Geogre 13:05, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Author - Sure thing, I understand,
feel free to delete both the erroneous entry and this one at will. Thanks for explaining George, I failed to think outside of the scope of Britain, and will take care in future. (Edit: Just read George's article on VfD; I should leave it up to others to determine 'deletability.') --193.61.200.140 13:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) - Comment: Please do consider getting an account and sticking around. We desperately need more fine arts content. Forget how little we have on emerging artists: our coverage of established artists is rudimentary for all folks after 1940. In other words, don't get discouraged. Keep the guidelines in mind, and you can always ask for proofreading or help from others. Geogre 13:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Author - Sure thing, I understand,
- Delete I've just been referred here by the author and I'd like to put in my vote for delete, I'm not worthy! I am intrigued by the wiki system though and hope to make some contributions. Thanks guys (sorry Fred). --Naresh 14:10, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 20:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 04:32, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.
