Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Photo Eminency

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. Fails WP:NCORP and there appears to be consensus for WP:SALT Dr vulpes (Talk) 11:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Photo Eminency

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article about a non-notable sports news photography company; fails WP:NCORP. The coverage is limited to:

A WP:PRIMARYSOURCE: [1],
Links to news articles/sites that have licensed Photo Eminency photos -- literally the most trivial of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8].
Another trivial mention: [9],
Passing coverage of niche industry awards in WP:TRADES publications: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14].
A source that does not mention the company: [15].

Nothing else qualifying found in a WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Photography, Companies, Martial arts, and Thailand. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable sports photo agency. Vanity page for Reza Goodary. Completely fails WP:NCORP. I would look into who is creating these articles surrounding the "founder" Reza Goodary (Author is trying to evade rules and has recreated the article in different wikis (13 wikis) (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reza Goodary, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reza Goodary (2nd nomination)). Lekkha Moun (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the repeated vanity article creation under the different name, I would support SALTing this page title and ask other participants to consider this as well. @Lekkha Moun, would you agree? Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Lekkha Moun (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't see that this company is WP notable or has the necessary significant and independent coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Some of the sources don't mention the company, or even its founder, at all--even when they're supposed to support claims in the article. This reminds me of the individual articles on Goodary that made lots of claims but had little or no supporting evidence to show WP notability. It does seem like another attempt to get Goodary a page in the English WP. Papaursa (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2025 (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.