Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Hill (photographer) (2nd nomination)

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. Sandstein 08:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hill (photographer)

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

Non-notable individual. More like a resume. Self-published references. The fact that he has had some photographs published does not make him notable. Was previously deleted at WP:AFD, but recreated. Rob Sinden (talk) 08:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I wrote last time around (5 January 2009) -- Hill seems to be no more than one in tens of thousands of rock photographers. He's young; he may go far. If/when he goes significantly further (solo exhibitions, books noted for the photographer as well as the subject matter, critical commentary), he can get an article; till then, 'fraid not. Delete. -- still seems apposite. But I'm open to evidence-based persuasion to the contrary. If this is deleted, then please also salt: a newly notable Peter Hill could of course still get an article. -- Hoary (talk) 09:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article shows no sign of notability as demonstrated by reliable, disinterested, sources; nor does it show any indication of notability even with unsourced claims. -Lopifalko (talk)

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.