Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo morris

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 20:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo morris

A photographer with a website, a blog and a MySpace address but with no independent sources (or compelling evidence of notability). Prodded, prod removed, so here we are. Hoary (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No compelling assertion of notability. A MySpace site, a blog and a mostly "under construction" homepage don't add up to WP:N, and Google turns up little besides some promotional material and some photo credits. I couldn't find the claimed recognition in The Guardian, The Telegraph or The Times, so this may just mean that they've used his photos once or twice (and not credited him online). Also per Geogre's Law. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 16:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Couldn't find claimed notability via his own website (under construction) link or via other searches. Jenafalt (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Protest Deletion Jenafalt, please explain what part of WP:BIO fails, furthermore, a website which is under construction does not remove notability but just makes it more difficult to find, the simple process of matching images from website and album covers on the artists websites verifies images, and few results on a google search also does not limit notability. Additionally, using non-internet sources such as checking the photo credits on the album artwork verifies notability. Jenafalt's claim of notability through own website goes against the basic principle of WP:BIO Author 22:13 19 August 2008 (BST) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should have worded thmy comment better I meant that I could find no claims to notability through either his own site or other searches. The relevant part of his website called clippings was under construction so I could find nothing there to help. Fails WP:BIO because of lack of notability. So I think this article is a Delete. Jenafalt (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no credible evidence of notability. Thus fails WP:BIO in general and WP:CREATIVE in particular. nancy ^talk 09:58, 20 August 2008 (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.