Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane Balkowitsch

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Balkowitsch

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

Promotion for non notable photographer. Outside of a little local interest he lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the note from Wikipedia regarding the lack of independent sources: there are at least three different newspapers and at least two government entities that are used as sources. What kind of sources were you looking for? As for the local non notable photographer comment, the subject is noteworthy because he is using a technique that has historical significance and is one of the few people in the world who is using this technique that he taught to himself. This is noteworthy in the art community and the historical community. His work is being documented and archived by government and educational entities and as he gets more noteworthy, this will be documented on his Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjf5280 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Coverage is mostly local but I think it's just enough to pass WP:GNG. --Finngall ^talk 17:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are quite enough sources in the articles to pass WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Agree with Tjf5280 that he's not just some local photographer. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:29, 16 June 2016 (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.