Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scarlet Page

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scarlet Page

A photographer who may well go far but for the time being seems more notable for her pedigree than for her own achievements. Or that's what the article seems to suggest, and WP:NOT#the Social Register of_pop_music — oh, sorry, I made that one up. A claim that she's "renowned" was flagged four months ago with a CITENEEDED tag, which remains there, unanswered. No published books, just one minor solo exhibition (according to her website). Does not meet the photographer criterion of WP:BIO. And there's a hint of puffery about the article, pointing out that she's "talented": or do editors expect that untalented photographers too deserve articles here? -- Hoary 07:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and WP:BIO. A google search shows little to no media coverage. --Daniel Olsen 07:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- notability is based largely on her father and on the subjects photographed, but does not meet the tests of WP:BIO. SteveHopson 13:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — per nom. Dionyseus 03:04, 22 August 2006 (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.