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. j⚛e decker^talk 18:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Walterlan Papetti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Having photos published is not inherently notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : Notable per coverage. Emilysantoss (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)— Emilysantoss (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep : Notable . User:GWEN ROBBANA (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)— GWEN ROBBANA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — GWEN ROBBANA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep : Makes specific references to notable and usable information. Servergurus (talk) 04:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)— Servergurus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep:The subject seems quite notable as per the media coverage seen in the following references.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/94941089@N03/|title=Celebrities clicked by Walterlan Papetti}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.walterlanpapetti.co.uk/press.php|title=Press Releases on Official Website}} </ref>{{reflist}}Cutemaryjane (talk) 08:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)— Cutemaryjane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete - to be honest, it looks like it might be eligible for speedy deletion as an entirely promotional piece. In any case, I do not see that WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG are met (the references mentioned above show that he has worked, not that he is notable.) --bonadea contributions talk 13:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It is also worth noting that the "keep" !votes above are SPAs and/or known paid editors. --bonadea contributions talk 21:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep : article is being reviewed, career section added — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natashahuart (talk • contribs) 21:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC) — Natashahuart (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete. Like Bonadea, I don't see that the references support sufficient notability to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. For example, the claim "celebrated globally in publications such as Vogue" has a "reference" that seems to merely indicate that he once had one photo published in the magazine. Looks like intentionally deceptive writing to me. I also agree that the history and behavior of some of the contributors to this discussion should raise concerns of a conflict of interest, inappropriate paid editing, and/or sock puppetry that is wider than just this one article. Gnome de plume (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I might start a SPI tomorrow - one of the SPAs was blocked for removing maintenance templates, and a brand new account popped up and started doing the same thing... meanwhile the article is being edited to become more and more promotional. No skin off my nose, but it is a bit annoying that the accounts that claim that they want the article kept are doing their best to prevent it from being improved. --bonadea contributions talk 21:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and check for socks. I couldn't find any sources discussing Papetti's work. Sources in the article exaggerated. Appearing in National Geographic meant he opened a member account there and uploaded some photos. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per Bonadea and fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This one doesn't seem even close to achieving notability. As noted by bonadea, it fails the general criteria as well as those under "Creative professionals". A basic web search turns up little; more specific searches turn up even less. --Larry (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A question at the Teahouse shows that this article was created as a birthday present to the subject. Certainly, the closing administrator will ignore any "keep" recommendations by newly created SPA accounts. I have not been able to find any evidence that this photographer is notable. Taking photos of notable people does not confer notability on a photographer. Significant biographical coverage in reliable sources is needed, and is lacking here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:30, 23 September 2014 (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.