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. In this AfD, the delete opinions are backed in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines far more strongly compared to those who are attempting to retain the article. Daniel Bryant 07:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard bailey[edit]

Seems to be an autobiography (uses "my" several times as an adjective). The main problem is the lack of sources, none are mentioned in the article, and I can't find any searching around. The article appears to fail WP:BIO. Silverhand^Talk 04:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "my" was a typo. I was transcribing from an interview with him. The facts are direct from Richard Bailey himself and his rep

Comment Was this an interview you performed yourself and own the copyright to? --Silverhand^Talk 05:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I interviewed his through his Australian Rep (linked on the page). That was why I wrote "my" a few times.Wjwallis 05:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Jason[reply]

Weak delete, although I'm convinceable. Heavy googling (including Google News Archive) does confirm that he's a photographer for (mostly Australian) Vogue and there are quite a few web galleries of his work and plenty of photo credits, but very little information actually about him, even though several Australian dailies are on GNA. At this point I just don't see enough sources for anything more than a basic stub. -- Dhartung | Talk 07:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete sourcing problems are usually indicative of WP:N problems (especially for someone who works within the media world). /Blaxthos 09:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 13:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity. --Peta 08:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I wrote about him. There is very little information available on Richard Bailey. However, I just found some information from his NYC rep: http://www.judycasey.com/RB/artist_detail.html This has a bio on him. Despite the lack of "google" information on him he is a VERY famous photographer. Any viewing of his work will prove this Wjwallis 17:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)wallisphoto (jason)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOR Ga rr ie 02:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want to delete this? part of the beauty of Wikipedia is you CAN find information on subjects that don't pop up as soon as you enter their name in Google! If you look at Richard Bailey's work and still believe he is not notable or worthy of being in Wikipedia fine. But as a photographer with 30 years worth of contributions to Australian Vogue he IS important. Please feel free to clean up my entry or make it a stub if I am referencing things incorrectly...Wjwallis 02:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)wallisphoto[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources from third parties can be found. If so, rename and keep. Capitalistroadster 03:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The problem with this article isn't so much that he might not be notable in the grand scheme of things, its that we have absolutely no way to verify his notability. I looked to verify a few of the facts, and the only thing I could reliably establish was that he indeed did shoot for for Australian Vogue, though for how long, and how successfully, I don't know. Wjwallis - I'm sure you are a upstanding and ethical interviewer, but unfortunately, we simply cannot take your word that the information in this article is accurate. We must use reliable third party sources to check the facts - and if the reliable sources don't exist, the article must be deleted. I searched around a bit, and couldn't find anything, but you can change my mind if reliable sources appear before the five days are up. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 03:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC) (Edited to correct spelling - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 03:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

OK I am looking! I'll see what I can find!Wjwallis 03:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Jason[reply]

Comment - CosmicPenguin nailed it on the head and said it better than I could. To take it one step further, lets use the comparison you made previously, David Bailey. Looking at his article, I can tell you something about his life, he is a member of the Order of the British Empire as well as his career from 1959 to present day. I can also tell you he's written or collaborated on three books and been interviewed in a fourth. He has pointers at the Internet Movie Database and has at least three published interviews. Comparatively speaking, Richard bailey is a man of mystery. There appears to be your interview, some reference to his work in Austrailian Vogue and online galleries of his art. Honestly, I think we'd all like to see an extremely well-written article for Mr. Bailey with a plethora of details on his life and career. The problem is, there isn't enough there even for a properly sourced stub. You mention other articles that are of equal stature. I won't deny that. As time moves on, all of the 1.5+ Million articles will get touched in some way. Some will go away, others will be improved. Still more will be created. Right now, it's about Richard bailey. A suggestion I might make in your sourcing is to read the most excellent article by Uncle G called On Notability. Be sure to read the entire article and don't skim it. Take it in it's entirety and read the links as well. Good luck and don't give up. Sincerely and respectfully, --Silverhand^Talk 18:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'll check it out. I admit my enthusiasm for the subject outpaces my wikipedia skills!Wjwallis 19:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)wallisphoto I have added a reference that cites all of my facts: Capture magazine interview Feb 2007. I can upload pdfs of it if anyone wishes? Wjwallis 03:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)wallisphoto[reply]

Delete, "Some of my Richard Bailey's advertising clients include". Teehee. Notability not convincing. Lankiveil 12:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Notablility?!! That's rich. Wikipedia has all sorts of trivial people with dubious notability (ie American Idol contestants etc.) who have done nothing. If you are a photographer and shoot for huge clients and shoot for Vogue for 30 years I think that makes you notable!

BTW I am not Richard Bailey! I wished I was but I am sure he has much better and more lucrative things to do with his time than this.Wjwallis 15:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)wallisphoto[reply]

I have added some more facts and references Wjwallis 04:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)wjwallis[reply]

Move to Richard Bailey. Passes WP:ATT, although the sources need some specificity cleanup, and more sources wouldn't hurt. (Wjwallis, was your interview with the subject published anywhere? Can you find some other published interviews that back up the assertions in the article? Please add links to specific articles, not just the main page of the source, or cite edition and page number, etc. See WP:CITE for instructions on how to properly cite sources.) ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 08:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the clean up with references whoever did itWjwallis 13:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)wallisphoto[reply]

Relisting this article, as most of the concerns regarded sourcing and several sources have been added, to gain consensus on whether the sourcing is sufficient given new information. I have no opinion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some of mySwatjesters clients are..........yeah, delete, per many above ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 10:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you going on about? He is notable and the sourcing is sufficient. The "my" joke is wearing a bit thin and lame nowWjwallis 22:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)wallisphoto[reply]

I am still not convinced. Adding a bunch of wiki links to notable people and things he has photographed does not help to assert his own notability, and the POV of the article has taken a turn for the worse (übercool agency??). For obviously reasons, his publicist is not a reliable source, neither are blogs. The picture gallery is pretty, and he takes nice pictures, but WP:ILIKEIT is not a criteria for inclusion. At least the B&W Magazine seems to confirm that he is a "top photographer", but WP:BIO demands multiple sources. If the Capture Magazine article listed in paragraph 2 is available - then that might push it over, though somebody would have to go through this article with a hatchet - get rid of the model names, the agency names, and the publicist links. Vote remains delete. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 02:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again: if you shoot for Vogue (the top fashion magazine in the world) for 30 years that would make you notable!!!! Most of the top photographers of all time used Vogue as their showcase: Richard Avedon, Herb Ritts, Steven Meisel, Ellen Von Unwerth, Anne Lebovitz, Bruce Weber... etc etc.

If you're on some lame reality show apparently you are notable so why not a professional photographer who works for Vogue?

If you judge his pictures are "pretty" and "nice" that is subjective and irrelevant. The fact is he is one of the top photographers in the world and his agency (top photographers have representatives) is relevant because that is where his work is displayed!!!

This issue here is the common misconception that notability and importance are related on Wikipedia. When editor say non notable they mean that there are not sufficient sources from which to write an article. Since many reality TV stars are interviewed in magazines it is often possible to write a good biographical article about them. --Daniel J. Leivick 17:26, 21 March 2007 (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.