Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Wu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 No consensus. Scrapes by with added refs and links to further refs. Ty 03:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sam Wu

Sam Wu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Questionable notability tag up since April with no improvements since, contested prod. Wizardman 04:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • *Weak Keep, appears to have won an award but I don't know whether the award itself is enough to meet notability. There's some other RS coverage if someone wants to dig. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 19:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep The photographer's Playboy work is significant enough to be in a 2005 anthology. He photographed three centrefolds: [1]. I'm not sure what that means - a bit outside my expertise.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The award he seems to have won does not appear to be sufficient to meet the notability guidelines, and this article has a lack of verifiable third party sources that establish his notability as sufficient to warrant an article to himself. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - This guy had a job, that we know. He may have been good at it, that we don't know. Was he extraordinary? Nope. Nothing to suggest that he was a notable photographer of centerfolds, unless just doing the job makes you notable. Triple3D (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I have just discovered (honest) and added Sam to Category:Playboy photographers, now 11 strong, though his 3 gatefolds do not compare strongly to an average of ?10+ - figs per his 2nd ref. i suspect a delete. Johnbod (talk) 04:16, 25 March 2008 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.