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, per WP:SNOW, WP:BLP and common sense. John (talk) 06:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Colegrove[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This photographer does not meet WP:BIO. I can find no reliable sources for him either on his website or via google. Some of the sources cited in his article are his own webpage (not independent of the subject) or are just not reliable sources.

The only clear reliable source cited in his article is "Ventura (CA) Star-Free Press (now the Ventura County Star) 18 May 1986 "The Art of War" pg C-9, column 8". But even there, it is not clear how much of that article covers Mr. Colegrove. Several paragraphs? A few lines? One of a list of people? That newspaper article supports text indicating that the year before his graduation, he worked as a photojournalist. People's summer jobs during college usually do not get much press, so I suspect this is nothing.

The other significant sources is from the "Organization for Ethical Photojournalism". Their info page indicates they are mostly supported by volunteer labor. Only one person on that list seems like a fact-checker (someone that does "research"). It is unclear from that whether this site would qualify as a reliable source. Without clearer indication that this person meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, I think we should delete this article.--Chaser (talk) 05:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I really like to keep pages. So I'm sad to say it looks like this page is not a keeper. I agree with Chaser. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Good nomination, Chaser. I just seached the Gayle/Proquest database (thousands of offline publications, all major newspapers and some minor ones indexed, magazines, trade pubs, alt press, etc.) No hits for "Daniel Colegrove", one hit for "Dan Colegrove", viz. a column named "Images", in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, 29 September 1996. Full cite in hidden text here. Ventura newspaper is apparently not included in the Proquest database, and no full text for the 500-word Plain Dealer article, either, so don't know whether it's our subject or not. Even if it were, subject still wouldn't meet WP:BIO. – OhioStandard (talk) 07:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Chaser (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 10:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as notability isn't apparent. -- Hoary (talk) 10:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I originally nominated this for deletion but I was not familiar with the process. Now that it has been done properly, I support the deletion of this page for lack of notability. That alone is enough reason for removing this page. I will also point out that the user Myraedison was created for the sole purpose of creating and editing this page and continues to do so. That user also serves as reference for another "contributor" to this page who is supposedly dead now. There is no online references to Myra Edison or Moe Richart, both of whom claim to be journalist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grablife (talk • contribs) 10:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looks like a failure at WP:BIO, non-notable. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 13:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No historical importance, no reliable sources Silver163 (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks notability, possible COI problems. Racepacket (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Because I'm asking nicely?NoWayToExplain (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty obvious non-notable spam. Incidentally, Chaser, when I click on those two links you posted, I get a GoDaddy page. They're also the only linked refs in the article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- @ Steven J. The site you refer to Organization for Ethical Photojournalism has been conveniently removed. It was used as the only other source of reference for this page. It was nothing more than a 1 level deep site with two to three glowing articles about Daniel Colegrove. It cited numerous quotes by the mysterious Myra Edison who also created much of the content for this page. --Grablife (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have no idea. The links worked last night.--Chaser (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<WP:BLP vio redacted -- see talk> Silver163 (talk) 03:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm everything Silver163 stated. I was aware of that from the beginning but was not sure if it was appropriate or relevant to bring that into the discussion as the mere existence of his page is enough reason for deletion since he is not notable. I decided not to mention it since that drama is secondary to the removal of this page.--Grablife (talk) 06:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not relevant. You had the right instinct.--Chaser (talk) 07:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<BLP vio redacted>.NoWayToExplain (talk) 01:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.