Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Ryter

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. - Mailer Diablo 06:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Ryter

Most of the assertions in this article are not verifiable. Or at least there has been no response to requests for sources of the claims made within the article. Ryter is described as an acclaimed American erotic photographer; erotic (and particularly, as here, homoerotic) photography isn't an area of which I am knowledgable, but I do know that Robert Mapplethorpe, Ruth Bernhard and others genuinely have received acclaim for this, and I expect that any "acclaimed" practitioner will have had solo exhibitions and/or substantial, critically reviewed publications. No evidence is presented for either of these, yet the article makes for Ryter's work such large claims as that it "addresses such themes as male sexual identity, religious concepts of guilt, self-exploitation and the intrigue of violent images", which suggests a lot more than the run of the mill. The article does come with seven (horribly formatted) external links; I dutifully clicked all of them and found no evidence that Ryter does anything other than churn out what seems to be very humdrum beefcake and gay porn. I have summarized the findings here under the perhaps unfortunate title "So what's notable about Ryter?"; I'd emphasize here that the reason why I'm proposing that the article should be deleted is not that the subject is not notable (I'm not qualified to judge the relative notability of those in the beefcake and gay porn industries) but instead the lack of verifiability and also the way this article -- the entire substance of which has been provided by editors who have contributed nothing that isn't Ryter-related -- reads like a piece of advertising. -- Hoary 04:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - The relevant passage of WP:BIO reads Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field. I can find no evidence that Ryter is widely recognized now or is likely to become so in the future. --Hyperbole 04:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. The article makes two assertions of notability. First is that Ryter has received worldwide acclaim, yet no support is given, nor can I independently verify this claim. The second is his association with Richard Avedon. Again, no verification is given. In addition, many, many people associated with Avedon in his long career and that fact doesn't make one notable in the absence of personal work. To paraphrase Sen. Bentsen, Ryter is no Avedon. SteveHopson 04:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Hoary. Akanksha 04:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

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.