Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damon Armstrong

Damon Armstrong

Non-notable photographer. Google search for "Damon Armstrong" photographer brings up 14 hits, only 5 of which are unique. RickK 20:35, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. Fails the Google test. 99% of edits were made by the same unregistered IP = shameless self-promotion. People like that should be banned from editing, in my opinion. David Johnson 21:36, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Advertising. If the article were about Coca-Cola and had this many press-release links, it would be deletable, too. We ought to represent artists better, but the living ones tend to drop page rank boosts on us. Geogre 22:07, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 00:27, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

• Delete I might add something here if that is ok gentlemen?!? Well it was I that added this article to Wikepedia... Please understand that I was under the assumption that it was ok to add another photographer to this site. I wasn't intentionally doing as you folk (didnt appreciate D.Johnson's comments) have suggested attempted shameless self promotion. Perhaps I should of read into it a bit more before adding the article to this section. Regardless just delete it please and sorry for adding it to wrong section. D.A.
  • The general rule is that autobiography is strongly discouraged. I, for one, think we need much more coverage on photographers and artists. They don't show up well on Google searches, and anyone of note is hard to verify (all articles must be verifiable) for people who don't know the subject. There is also a prohibition against advertising. That said, there is a need for references (to allow the verification), so there's a bit of a double bind there. If you have been putting up shows and doing tours, I'd say you do need to be covered (and I'd much rather err with a less than notable but real photographer than with a fictional cartoon character or blogger somewhere). If you can tone down the promotional aspects of the article, please let us know, and I think it's fair to say that people will re-evaluate their votes. Articles are on VfD for 7 days and absolutely can be improved. Geogre 01:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Well, there's nothing on that page anymore anyway. --Idont Havaname 04:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Thank you George for explaining a few things. I agree with you on what you say as well (the double bind point.) As for re-editing the article to see if people will re-evulate their votes I am not sure. It seems there is NO place here for not as "noteable" photographers or artists that are starting to become more popular as compared to say Ansel Adams. You seem to agree that there perhaps could be a place for it here... I for one would like to see that also.
    • If you create an account, which takes about 5 seconds and doesn't require disclosure of any information, you get a user page on which you can say pretty much whatever you'd like about yourself. I'd like to see more coverage of photography, too. I hope you decide to stick around. You could probably do a lot to improve our article on Lomography for a start. And if... this is a very big if and you need to be sure you understand the GFDL... you felt like contributing one or two of your lomographic images or two to that article, I know it would be more than welcome. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:11, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 06:34, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)