Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Perreault

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Mr. Perreault certainly appears to be an accomplished fetish photographer with a well known girlfriend. Those facts alone, however, do not sufficiently establish notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. The article borders on self-promotion. I am deleting the article as a failure of WP:BIO, WP:RS, and WP:V, as well as a direct and persistent conflict of interest per the arguments presented below. alphachimp 05:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Perreault

edit
Martin Perreault (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Photographer whose main (perhaps only?) claim to notability is tastefully photographing his improbably curvacious girlfriend (who also has a WP article: Bianca Beauchamp) in latex or bikinis or whatever for magazines of the kinds that I suppose come sealed in cellophane (no evidence supplied) and websites. Mentions of and links to the latter abound. No independent verification is supplied (WP:V) for anything but the websites, there's no hint of notability per WP:BIO, and the article (the interests of whose contributors seem limited to Perreault and Beauchamp) has a whiff of promotion about it. Hoary 02:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


REPLY TO THE ABOVE: This profile is as valid as any other. The above statement is pure discrimination against the work that I do.

My credentials can be easily verified online. A simple search on Google with my name will show articles about my work (notably from eros-zine online) and more searches will show LOTS about model Bianca Beauchamp, who is internationally known. Evidence is supplied many times, on both profiles. Googling any of the two names will provide anyone with more than enough information on the validity of these profiles. Further more, a list of all publications I have done can be found here: http://www.martinperreault.com/magazines.html . Each editor can be contacted to verify my credentials. Yes, I do shoot my "curvacious girlfriend". An article about someone should not be deleted on the simple fact that a viewer dislikes the art produced by the artist(s). A forum full of people who know about my work can be found here: http://forum.biancabeauchamp.com . This profile is not about self promotion. Fans started this page and I help them fix it with correct details. The same aplpies for profile Bianca Beauchamp, to which I only started contributing lightly very recently, even though her profile has existed for over 2 years. My involvement to both profiles is only to make sure of the validity of the information posted. For example, images users have posted on these two profiles were deleted due to copyright infringement; but by posting the same pictures myself, and by adding the information that I shot them, it makes them legit. The simple fact that my username on Wikipedia is the same as my real name shows that I do not hide behind a false name, like others might do to self promote. My involvement is to make sure the information posted is accurate. I can be contacted on my website www.martinperreault.com or on model BiancaBeauchamp.com website. I invite anyone here to contact the editors of the following magazines to verify the above information: Bizarre Magazine (UK) www.bizarremag.com to which I shot their covers 5 times in 2 years; Skin Two Magazine (UK) www.skintwo.com to which I shot their cover 2 times and featured in them many times. Marquis Magazine (www.marquis.de) for which I shot their cover 2 times in two years, _ many features. Penthouse Australia for which I shot their cover feature last year. Playboy Enterprise (www.playboyse.com) for which I shot a feature in Playboy SE in 2006 with model Bianca Beauchamp (who appeared many times in Playboy SE and on their cover of the Lingerie Edition). I think this should be more than enough to prove the validity of this profile. Martin Perreault - www.martinperreault.com 04:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article doesn't assert as to why he's notable, and appears to be somewhat autobiographical - possible POV issues, as it were. Excellent photography, though - but as has been demonstrated so many times, I like it is not a good reason to keep. Note to Martin, please remember to be civil in this discussion, and feel free to ask questions. My advice: change our minds. --Dennisthe2 04:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/response: An article about someone should not be deleted on the simple fact that a viewer dislikes the art produced by the artist(s). Strong agreement! And two comments. First, the visual evidence presented here shows that Perreault has a fine sense of light and how to use it; he seems to be an excellent photographer and my guess, fwiw, is that he'll go far. I hope he does. Secondly, while latex doesn't happen to be my thing, I've nothing against photos of pneumatic girls in bikinis, especially when the bikinis are much too small. So as it happens I don't dislike the art. ¶ However, this doesn't (yet) add up to notability or verifiability. It's unusual, to say the least, to say that verification can and should be sought by direct appeal to publishers. For other photographers, the verification is out there on independent, credible websites, in published books, etc. -- Hoary 04:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These aren't "profiles" but "articles", and if there are perceptions that this is anything like myspace or the like than that is certainly incorrect. That being said, while the sources stated may be able to provide validation (although we'll need to cite sources that are accessible to a reader though, as far as I know); I don't believe those are enough to provide notability? Simply being the fact that you were a part of these things doesn't mean you are notable, and while you can personally verify a lot of information, it needs to be verifiable through reliable 3rd party sources. I haven't looked enough at the topic to know if that is possible, but if it is, and it is accomplished, I would have no objection to the article, as it is now, it needs to assert notability and verifiably prove statements. 66.159.174.217 05:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I have nothing against latex. Article does not cite reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO, WP:SELF and WP:V. Even if Bianca Beauchamp is notable, being her photographer does not make one notable by association. IchiAi is a single purpose account, and article may fail WP:COI. Ohconfucius 08:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC) Vote change to Weak keep, subject to cleanup per discussion and my comments below.[reply]
  • Should be perhaps moved to his user page? If not possible, leaning towards delete. Nice photos though. --Ouro 11:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Don't agree with reasons stated for deletion.
    • Artist who certainly is notable. I've watched his work for several years.
    • Sexual fetish artists are as notable as sports, e-games, and pro wrestling celebrities.
    • Article is referenced, so I'm not sure why Verifiability is a problem. I checked references, they looked good to me. I found a number of independent references, such as Eros Magazine [1] and Skintwo[2] Atom 13:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may wish to specify how you disagree. -- Hoary 14:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Martin Perreault might not be (yet) a worldwide celebrity, but he’s definitely a world known and one of the most appreciated photographers in a certain (fetish) subculture. To address the issues mentioned above:
    WP:BIO, reliable 3rd party sources:With time I believe Wikipedia have grown from a pure scientific encyclopedia to something bigger. There are many articles about politics, art and other fields of human existence, where a reliable source is not as clearly defined as in the guideline targeting mainly science. Still the mentioned magazines and e-magazines – repeated publishing inside them and even being author of several of their covers, so as covers of several books, that all IMHO is a good sign of notability. Another sign of notability should be that several other world famous fetish models worked with Martin Perrault and they include his work in their portfolio. (The links to Internet incarnations of some of the mentioned magazines and models: Skin Two, Marquis, Playboy, Bizarre Magazine, Penthouse, Julie Strain, Jean Bardot,Emily Marilyn, Darenzia, Storm, Sway, Masuimi Max).
    WP:V): Isn’t this a catch XXII a little – especially in case of an article about a person. It’s not correct to write a biography about a person until somebody writes a biography about the person. Still in several articles about and/or interviews with him I read his short bio – if it’s enough.
    The fact that Martin Perrault contributes to the article himself was addressed already but allow me to repeat it. If you observe his edits, you will notice they serve to accurate some information and to ensure the legal use of photos. Does it fall under WP:SELF – I would say not.
    IchiAi being a single purpose account is not true. I know the person, so I can assure you –as far as you will believe me - he contributed to several articles, but created his account only when decided to write a completely new entry to Wikipedia. And something very similar applies to me. Naturally we edit only what is in the field of our interest.
    Using word "profile" instead "article": not everybody is a native speaker and/or everyday contributor to Wikipedia (like me for example). Then it can easily happen such person don’t use a best expression.
    And a final note to Hoary: Even tough you tell you are not against this kind of photography some of your words in the first paragraph hints otherwise. Why that personal and disparage remarks? .... posted by Rikapt (contributions), who didn't sign

— Rikapt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
—- Now what? Do you suspect I am Martin Perreault? No, I am not - but you will not believe me anyway... --Rikapt 16:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • (i) The links to Internet incarnations of some of the mentioned magazines and models: Links to the websites of the magazines prove nothing. What might be interesting would be links to specific pages on those websites in which Perreault is described as the photographer of this or that. But note WP:BIO on notable photographers: "Published [...] photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." (ii) It’s not correct to write a biography about a person until somebody writes a biography about the person. Essentially yes, that's right: WP:NOR. (iii) Why that personal and disparage remarks? What's at issue here is not me but the article. But OK, I'll bite: How were my remarks disparaging? (Please tell me on my talk page rather than cluttering up this page. Thanks.) -- Hoary 14:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry I forgot to sign. It was not my intention to post the text anonymously (would have done it little smarter anyway ;-) ). Thank you Hoary for adding the information before I remembered to do it myself, also the link to my contributions is nice - does it mean anything?
      (i) Such content you required is in payed zone so it can't be linked directly. Does it not count then? And how to prove the appearance in paper versions of the magazines you don't know?
      (iii)I am aware it's of lesser or no importance in the issue. Still somebody pointed out Martin to react in civil way, so maybe he failed to notice your initial style might have initiate that reaction. (more on your talk page). --Rikapt 14:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no substantive claim to notability. A great way to earn a living, but without solid evidence that he's been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources, he fails to meet WP:BIO. Guy (Help!) 15:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addition OK I took the effort and "googled" for some 3rd party reference of Martin Perreault (was not hard to do):
    * Eros Zine (mentioned many times but this is and article about him)
    * Jaxon Jaganov's review - especially the 6th and 7th paragraph
    * Flasbot
    * Fetish Design
    * Carbelle (in French)
    * Club Sin
    * X3Guide
    * model Darenzia's web
    * Crazy Rubber
    * Chapitre étudiant École Polytechnique reunion (PDF in French).
    More needed? Rikapt 15:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Guy's reasoning (notability is in no way established). Mr. Perrault, please find another place to promote your works. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Guy. I've seen this sort of stuff before, but at least the Musikfabrik articles weren't so obviously promotion, this is grossly so. Vanity as well, at a guess, so we have WP:AUTO problems. Moreschi Deletion! 16:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Martin Perreault is an accomplished photographer and his work impacts not only the fetish world, but the world of, say, gamers - as it was his photography and work with Bianca that allowed her to become the "living model" of Elexis Sinclair in promotion of Ritual's "Sin Episodes" game series. I believe his work has significance and he has credibility and esteem enough to warrant a wiki article, which is why I started an account, so I could add this article. I have been an anonymous contributor to Wiki for some time, and I am a little annoyed that simply because I was required to start an account in order to create a new article, it is assumed that I have not contributed before. Is it not clear from the layout of the page (there was help from others - this too, is evidence that Mr. Perreault has a fan following and deserves a Wiki page) that this is a serious attempt to start an informative, biographical article? How much space does this take from Wiki? Any move against this article is, to my mind, simply puritanical cleansing and censorship. Please reconsider. IchiAi 17:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - a few reviews and mentions on websites but nothing above trivial in my mind. I could probably be talked out of this with more sources. But, everyone please read WP:COI and WP:V. - Aagtbdfoua 19:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I see no reliable sources. Reviews and interviews on different erotic or porn-related sites is not enough for establishing notability. MaxSem 19:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Perreault is clearly an excellent photographer, but one whose notability is not yet established. The article fails WP:V as it shows no independent verification of the details. It also fails WP:OR as the only references are to the sites maintained by Bianca Beauchamp and Mr. Perreault (and many of the details of Beauchamp's site require paid registration). Moreover, the article does not demonstrate a claim for notability, only a hallow claim that he is "an accomplished photographer (although I agree, the article does not demonstrate) . . . best known for his work with long time professional and personal partner, Bianca Beauchamp." As an aside (because this is not a fatal flaw), the article reads very much like an autobiography, full of details of interest primarily to one's self and, perhaps, one's mother. ["Perreault was excited by the fabric, but Bianca was a bit nervous about it. As a way of overcoming her fear and showing her affection for Perreault, she purchased the dress in secret and surprised him at a Halloween party. Eventually she posed for him for fun, wearing the latex dress. Although she was nervous at first, Beauchamp quickly came out of her shell and warmed up to the camera."] Delete and when Perreault does meet the standards by accumulating verifiable professional accolades by others, the article can be recreated. TheMindsEye 20:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fringe notability but also blatant self promotion. This is a common sort of thing to see in the AFD world: Little known artist creates a page about them self, it gets tagged for deletion and they raise a fuss citing some mention in semi reputable sources. Also pretty clear evidence of sock puppets: IchiAi, Rikapt and Martin Perreault all only edit pages related to Martin Perreault. I would recommend that these "users" take a look at WP:AUTO and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Daniel J. Leivick 20:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeletePer Daniel J. Leivick. I have also looked at the edit history of the authors and these are mostly related to the subject and closely realted articles. It seems to be vanity/advertising --Kevin Murray 21:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, then redirect to Bianca Beauchamp, his model. IMO, his work is notable, but the notability mostly accrues to the model, the aforementioned Ms. Beauchamp, and Martin Perreault can be briefly mentioned in her article. I can see Mr. Perreault gaining sufficient notability in his own right in future, but he's not quite there yet, IMO. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would like to point out that if you look at the fetish photographer page on wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetish_photographer ) several other fetish photographers have pages on wikipedia, pages that are no more (often less) well supported than this one. I will not deny the article about M. Perreault needs work, but no article is born perfect. Deleting it at this poing would be overly draconian. M. Perrault has also been inteviewed about his work in more mainstream media, including French and English Canadian TV chanels - Perhaps these should be added as references to the article. --Observer31 19:18, 6 January 2007 (EST)
  • Comment I see this argument here -- other articles are not notable, so why not let this one pass -- and must say that it is not persuasive to me. Following it to the natural conclusion would be a lowering of Wiki standards for all articles. Or perhaps you are suggesting that we just lower standards for Fetish Photographers? Rather than agreeing to lower standards, I would prefer to work on rooting out the articles that you think are less" well supported than this one."
Moreover, I also find the documentation to not fully support your point. A look at the list of photographers on the Fetish photographer page reveals that four of the articles -- Andru Chrisst, Edward Lee, Timothy Hughes, and Kristina Vassilieva were deleted through Wiki processes. Apparently other editors have chosen to maintain Wiki policies rather than weakening them. Other names on the list, such as Helmut Newton, have much greater documentation than Perreault. TheMindsEye 01:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentObserver31 is another example of the possible sockpuppets involved in this discussion. We have established users saying Delete and four users who's only contributions so far involve the article in question saying Keep. It is not serious enough yet to check the IPs but it certainly doesn't help the articles case. --Daniel J. Leivick 01:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment at this point I would urge you to please check the IP - it's not fun being called a sock pupet, and I think you will find that I'm not M. Perreault and that the others are most probably not either. --Observer31 01:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional keep, the condition being that proof is provided that Mr Perreault has contributed magazine covers. To my mind that would establish notability. Mallanox 03:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Magazine cover alone do not establish notability, we need third party reputable sources that give this person more than a passing mention. Daniel J. Leivick 03:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree, an artist who achieves mass penetration with his works is notable regardless of the field. I did point out that this is an opinion. A magazine is a third party source, the titles mentioned a notable ones. Mallanox 04:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Magazines have different covers every month created by literally hundreds of thousands of commercial photographers, some are notable some are not. Wiki policy on photographers notability is as follows: "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work"(are considered notable). As far as I can tell no reputable reviews or awards can be cited. Just as an example I read the English car magazine evo they have 10-15 contributing photographers who have done covers none have Wikipedia articles because they are not notable just as Perreault is not. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • That argument is a bit weak - Evo is a magazine about cars, not a magazine about car photography. Having one's photos on the cover of Skin Two is, within that field, a much greater achievement. Please give us the time to find the proper references to shore the article up. Observer31 05:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would like to state, for the record, that I am not a "sock puppet", nor is Observer or Rikapt. MartinPerreault is indeed the same man the article is about, and he has edited it to correct some small details about his life. Has it ever occured to anyone that perhaps casual wiki readers/anonymous contributors, when they see an article that is about someone whose work they admire marked for deletion, might come out of the woodwork, so to be speak, in order to speak out against it? I find this whole thing ridiculous and a bit disheartening, as I have been an avid supporter and reader of Wikipedia for years.IchiAi 04:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I accused you of being a single purpose account, which you are. The practice of setting up and editing with multiple accounts is not prohibited, and is generally frowned upon by fellow editors, as it is often seen as an attempt to render the editorial responsibility less transparent. Ohconfucius 02:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I see no value in running a checkuser. My personal conjecture is at least some of you are well-intentioned friends of the subject. In any case, I hope you will read the link as it summarizes some of the concerns that are raised when a number of single-purpose accounts participate in a deletion discussion. I think further debate about sock/meatpuppets are unproductive. The identified users are single-purpose accounts, and there is no way to change this. There is, to my knowledge, no way of proving one is not a meatpuppet. However, there are editors with a longer tenure that support keeping this article. I suggest that supporters of this article spend their energies improving it. Everyone else, the point has been made about meat/socks. Tag any newly participating single-purpose accounts as spas, but leave it at that. - Aagtbdfoua 05:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. As said above, fails WP:OR (full of way too much personal info) and WP:V to name a few. I suspect this also fails WP:BIO, and WP:COI, depending on who actually wrote this. The SPA behind it looks suspicious. KnightLago 05:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added references to the article. One is an interview held with Eros e-zine. The other shows that he is an established figure in the fetish community (hence the high number of Google hits) and has hosted events indluding the 2006 Latextavy ball. This guy in my opinion deserves a Wikipedia article. Mallanox 06:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Of the references, the first two don't mention Perreault, one is a blog, which along with another link merely mentions that Perreault is hosting the Latexstavy ball, and two, which I have been unable to connect to for the past half hour, are Perreault's own web site and that of his girlfriend. The only reference that does not utterly fail WP:RS is the interview in Eros magazine, and I don't think that is enough to establish notability. If this is the best that the supporters have been able to come up with in references, the article fails the requirements of WP:V. -- Donald Albury 14:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a career publicity service. Honbicot 14:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Comment

References, other than print: Interview on national TV Canada: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKvK2mnBCqc | Interview on Life Channel, both with beauchamp and Perreault: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoPZTvJAAf4 | Interview on Bianca Beauchamp, part interview with Perreault: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H_CTZJUhhE | Interview with Beaucahmp, mention of Perreault: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44tzzLWURdg | note: not all tv interviews are available online. I understand the importance of being careful with inclusion of articles on Wikipedia being a project about archiving knowledge and information. I would like to clarify a few things: I am not posting under multiple usernames like some above have been implying. I know how "first time posters" make it look like that. These first time posters are people that follow Bianca Beauchamp's career on her website. I am very much present on these websites, being that I do all the photography there and more. So these people are very much aware of my work, and notability in the fetish scene worldwide. The article was started by one of them as a matter of fact, which also explains the reason why I came here myself to make minor modifications to the article because some details were wrong. I understand how this may look to many. Further more, as if this didn't look bad enough, one of our server is down at the moment due to a DOS ATTACK. So biancabeauchamp.com and martinperreault.com are have been down for 24 hours and as I write this, they still are down. Sure enough, some might see this as a sign that we are phony. Personally, I question the very odd timing as well for such an attack, but for other reasons. That said, I can certainly only state once more that this whole Wikipedia Article was done with good intention and is not a promo scheme. I understand there are ways and guidelines to follow at Wikipedia, and I am certain they were created to make sure Wikipedia remains a reliable source of information. Therefore, I leave it up to the Wikipedia contributors to make the final decision, and to look at the situation factually and not through eyes of suspicion. I would like to take this opportunity to publically thank the original contributor who started this article. I think you did a very good job and I am honored you thought important to contribute my name to the online encyclopedia. Thank you for your time. Martin Perreault - www.martinperreault.com 18:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral Both sides have major points which has lead to me abstain from voting. If I were to vote, I'd probably vote keep but with a major rewrite of his page. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 19:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Rikapt and Hoary. Wikipedia needs to be careful with contemporary art and artists, that's true. However, I see a large number of supports of notability, and the entire nom is written so as to be skewed against his particular subject matter and style of photography. Further, at least some of the voters on this particular AfD have an established history of trying to police WIkipedia and remove articles of a ...'prurient' nature. In part, this makes suspect, to me, this entire nom. I'd recommend tht anyone supporting this consider deletion review, should the article go for deletion.ThuranX 20:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (in italics) on the references supplied above:

In summary, he does appear to be known within his realm, but the reliability of many sources is not sufficiently strong. Although there have been hits about him even in German, a lot of the detail in the article is very personal, and fails WP:V. My "week keep" vote change above is sustained by the articles in Fleshbot, Eros.com. We seem to be dredging the bottom of all available links to find articles to properly assert notability, and two articles does not equal "multiple" per WP:BIO. Furthermore, article is in desperate need of a cleanup to remove unsourced info and spam. Ohconfucius 03:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ohconfucius for the most part. The article will probably end up being kept because it is unlikely a delete consensus will be reached as the subject is near the very edge of notablity (IMO on the wrong side of it), but if that is the case it will need clean up to lessen the promotional tone and do away with information coming from autobiographical sources. If it were up to me I would merge with the Beauchamp article a section mentioning her primary photographer is all that is really necessary as there arn't really any good sources for the additional information. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


With all the respect I disagree how You have dismissed several reference as trivial and failing WP:RS. Especially in the case of Skin Two and Marquis magazines, that are worldwide sold magazines, whose main target of interest is fetish fashion and photography. Also repeated feature appearances in them (I have listed only the cover appearances, not the many inside features, and the ones I have access to; perhaps others could confirm the rest of apperances mentioned on MP's web), especially MP not being their employee, I don't find trivial.
Also the WP:SELF fails confuse me. I don't see what the mentioned references have to do with that policy/guideline (if I overlooked something I am sorry, this remark is not intended to debase anyhow your opinion).
Finally what exactly you find to be spam? The long list of references was added on request to support notability. -- Rikapt 11:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about proving that Perreault exists or that he is a photographer, I think we all agree on those points. But there is no link to any article in Marquis, and the article in Skin Two says nothing of significance about him: he is a photographer, he shot 10 pages for the magazine, he was in Los Angeles. How is that notable? If you read a random sample of Wikipedia articles on other photographers to get a better idea of what makes a photographer notable. Here's a list of photographers to help.Pinkville 18:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The issue here is not the subject matter of the photography, nor the subject matter or context of the few references/links provided, but rather that when you boil the article down to its facts we know only that a fetish/pin-up photographer named Martin Perreault was born in Montreal, possibly studied at Concordia University, has mostly photographed 1 model, has created two websites, and once hosted a fetish ball. How does that information suggest that Perreault is more notable than any of literally millions of photographers or artists around the world? Surely every editor on this page knows first-hand at least a few people with similarly illustrious CVs. I don't believe it's Wikipedia policy but it is common sense that the burden of proof for notablility ought to be on the editors proposing an article for inclusion and not on those who argue for deletion. People like Nan Goldin, Weegee and Robert Mapplethorpe have all photographed subjects belonging to various subcultures (usually with far more scandalous imagery than any of Perreault's images I've looked at) and they are included in Wikipedia because they have been exhibited, books and articles examinging their work have been published, and they have an easily traceable influence on society. The sources cited for Perreault, on the other hand, provide virtually no substantial information, certainly nothing to suggest that he is worthy of an article in a serious encyclopaedia. Pinkville 17:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pretty much my opinion as well. Now, if any of these fetish magazines had published articles about him or interviews, I'd consider him a notable person within the fetish community - and I know they do publish such articles. Right now, I'd say the time for an article on him has not yet come, if nothing else because there are no good third party sources that say anything significant about him. So far, if anyone's notable, it's his model - she at least gets the recognisability of having been on these magazine covers. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pinkville. There simply isn't anything to suggest he is of encyclopaedic notability. GassyGuy 21:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why such oversimplification of M.Pereault's (MP) appearances in the magazines? It's not true he has appeared in magazines only once or twice. As I mentioned at the beginning of the list I included only the referenced material I have access to and also the most notable ones (e.g. covers) and skipped the almost regular feature appearance in them. Secondly, listing more influential photographers to be the reason why MP should not have an article is weird. (Does the fact that Albert Einstein has an article mean Roger Penrose can't have it? Hardly.) The argument MP lacks awards is also weak simply because there are no such awards in fetish photography. So to enrich the list of reference (either by new ones or by adding extended information):
     * A photographer being included in the Fetish Anthology 4 (the last edition) book needs a great degree of notability. Being it a selection of few best artists in the genre is far from trivial
     * In the last issue of Marquis magazine (#40) a (positive) review of the book MP created and published together with his muse Bianca Beauchamp can be found
     * Secret magazine ( another fetish magazine, distributed worldwide) brings a color portfolio of MP’s photography. Quote from their webpage (first sentence): Secret Issue #30 has a special color portfolio with Martin Perreault and fetish star/model "Bianca"
     * Two leading latex fashion producing companies, Vex and Polymorphe chose MP's work to advertise their creations
    The whole latex fashion phenomenon is recently going mainstream. It influences game industry, music, movies, generally all pop-culture, but even haute-couture fashion. We are trying to show you Martin Perreault and his photography, of course in close collaboration with his muse and life partner Bianca, have a strong influence to the fetish movement in recent years and are its trendsetters. They created one of the very first fetish websites. And although there are many other fetish photographers, MP helped develop the "glamour" side of fetish, apart from the classic BDSM art. For that reasons he (also) deserves an article on Wikipedia. -- Rikapt 12:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The claims you make here for Perreault's influence may be true, but you have not provided any evidence to support them. This is the first mention of a book by him... does it have a title? Is it readily available? so his photos have appeared in various magazines... that's fine but not in itself notable. There are thousands of stock photographers, thousands of perfectly competent or even excellent photographers whose work appears in magazines, yet who aren't notable in any sense that's meaningful for an encyclopaedia. You didn't like the comparison between Perreault and Goldin, Mapplethorpe and Weegee (though I hardly think your Einstein and Penrose comparison is analogous), well how about comparing Francesca Woodman or John Veltri or Francesco Scavullo with Perreault? Such comparisons are indeed apt, because the photographers I've mentioned do satisfy the criteria for notability, they constitute a basis to judge others. Let's take up your Einstein/Penrose comparison. First, Penrose is a hugely important physicist, so the ostensible contrast in notability between him and Eisntein doesn't actually exist. A more appropriate contrast would be between either Einstein or Penrose and a graduate student in physics. The latter may someday become a great physicist in her/his own right, but at the moment they're just building up a CV. If/when anything sustantive is written about Perreault's photography then a Wikipedia article will be appropriate, but not now. Pinkville 15:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your comparison to a "graduate student" is inept - Mr. Perreault is already famous in his field and quite accomplished - he is by no means "starting out" in his career. His book is available at http://www.fetishsexsymbol.com/ IchiAi 18:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here follows an exhaustive list of contributions to and features in books, magazines, and the like:

  • BIZARRE #72: COVER + photo spread
  • BIZARRE #79: COVER + full feature for the special Annual Fetish Issue.
  • BIZARRE #92: 4 full page feature.
  • BIZARRE #100: COVER + full feature for the special GREATEST HITS Issue.
  • BIZARRE #105: photos.
  • BIZARRE #106: photos.
  • BIZARRE #107: photos.
  • BIZARRE #108: photos.
  • BIZARRE #109: photos.
  • BIZARRE #110: photos.
  • BIZARRE #111: photos.
  • BIZARRE #112: photos..
  • BIZARRE #113: COVER + 4 pages feature
  • BIZARRE #114: photos.
  • BIZARRE #115: photos.
  • BIZARRE #116: photos.
  • CORPS ET ÂME #29: Photos in article on latex fashion (+ direct mention of Perreault's involvment in the fetish scene
  • DERNIÈRE HEURE: COVER + feature + mention of Perreault's involvment in fetish photography
  • ECHO DES SAVANES #221: COVER + photos
  • ECHO DES SAVANES #223: 2 page spread
  • JEUX VIDEO: August 2006 (French Magazine)- 3 pages interview along with photos
  • HEAVY RUBBER #06: photos + article on Perreault.
  • HEAVY RUBBER #10: feature.
  • HEAVY RUBBER #11: COVER + photos
  • HEAVY RUBBER #15: feature.
  • HEAVY RUBBER #17: feature.
  • HEAVY RUBBER #18: feature.
  • HEAVY RUBBER #20: feature.
  • LOOKER #09: feature
  • MAKEUP ARTIST #: photos
  • MARQUIS #19: feature
  • MARQUIS #22: feature.
  • MARQUIS #23: feature.
  • MARQUIS #23: feature.
  • MARQUIS #30: photos.
  • MARQUIS #31: photos.
  • MARQUIS #32: COVER + 10 pages feature.
  • MARQUIS #33: photos
  • MARQUIS #34: photos.
  • MARQUIS #35: photos
  • MARQUIS #37: photos.
  • MARQUIS FETISH MODELS DIRECTORY 2004: feature.
  • MARQUIS FETISH MODELS DIRECTORY 2005: feature.
  • MARQUIS STYLE #01: COVER + feature.
  • MAX #192: photos.
  • NIGHTLIFE: (Montreal magazine) - 1 page interview.
  • NUGGET COVER + Feature.
  • PC PLAYER: photos.
  • PC PLAYER: photos
  • PENTHOUSE: 3 page feature, March.2005, Australian edition.
  • PENTHOUSE: COVER + Centerfold feature, June 2006.
  • PLAYBOY: photo.
  • PLAYBOY HOT SHOTS 2006: 2 pages feature, Oct.2005.
  • PLAYBOY WET & WILD: feature, August.2006.
  • SKIN TWO #39: article (p.39), apr.2002.
  • SKIN TWO #40: Photo + article (p.15), june.2002.
  • SKIN TWO #41: COVER + 5 pages, oct.2002.
  • SKIN TWO #42: photos (p.11,80,91,99); (p.52), oct.2002.
  • SKIN TWO #43: photos
  • SKIN TWO #44: news (p.22) on Perreault + Beauchamp; photos
  • SKIN TWO #45: photos
  • SKIN TWO #46: photos
  • SKIN TWO #47: photos
  • SKIN TWO #48: feature
  • SKIN TWO #49: COVER + 10 pages photos
  • SKIN TWO #50: photos
  • SKIN TWO #52: photos
  • SKIN TWO #54: photos
  • SKIN TWO #55: photos
  • SKIN TWO #56: p14 - news on Perreault's book.
  • SKIN TWO DIRECTORY 2005: photos
  • SKIN TWO DIRECTORY 2006: photos
  • SKIN TWO LATEXTRA: COVER, + photos
  • SKIN TWO LATEXTRA #16: COVER, + photos
  • TWENTY FOUR SEVEN LONDON: London Newspaper, Jan.2006 | 2 full pages interview + photos.
  • WHIPLASH #3: COVER + 8 pages feature + mentions of Perreault
  • WHIPLASH #5: COVER + 9 pages feature
  • WHIPLASH #7: 8 pages feature
  • WHIPLASH #8: photos.
  • WHIPLASH #9: photos
  • WHIPLASH #10 COVER + photos in feature on Martin Perreault fetish Photographer, Oct.2004.

BOOKS: COVERS shot by Perreault, all fully credited inside:

  • AN EDUCATION IN THE PRIVATE HOUSE: COVER, Paperback by Nexus Publishing.
  • FEMININE WILES: COVER, Paperback by Nexus Publishing.
  • SEX, TAKE A WALK ON THE WILD SIDE: Fetish Anthology; (review) ; two photos under photographer Martin Perreault.
  • SLAVE REVELATIONS: COVER, Paperback by Nexus Publishing. (review)
  • SLAVE SENTENCE: COVER, Paperback by Nexus Publishing.
  • THE BOND: COVER, Paperback by Nexus Publishing.
  • THE CORRECTION OF AN ESSEX MAID: COVER, Paperback by Nexus Publishing.
  • THE NEXUS LETTERS: COVER, Paperback by Nexus Publishing.
  • THE SMARTING OF SELINA: COVER, Paperback by Nexus Publishing.
  • WILD BY NATURE: COVER, Paperback by Nexus Publishing.

It is a shame that, rather than being allowed to grow this article slowly and naturally, with care, I must instead dump a list of credentials in order to stop the article from being deleted.

A shame? Frankly, that's a bizarre comment. Every article in Wikipedia is supposed to "dump a list of credentials" to support the subject's claim to notability. Pinkville 19:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Credential do not always add up to notablity. All this list really shows is that Perreault is a moderately successful fetish photographer. Many many comercial photographers could post lists many times longer then this one without establishing any notablity. The only things that I can see on this list that might take a step towards being good sources are the two interviews but being the subject of a grand total of three pages of independent material doesn't do much for me. Daniel J. Leivick 19:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the evidence presented is compelling. I wonder if we may have an example of a commericial photographer who has a list of uses of their work many times longer who is not notable? Mallanox 00:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there are plenty. I list several commercial photographers among my acquaintances. As far as I know they have never sought articles in Wikipedia and it hasn't crossed my mind to make articles for them. This is no criticism of them as photographers or as people: they're excellent photographers and good people. They have much longer lists; and lists that tend to be more varied, though it's true that commercial photographers tend to concentrate on certain areas (cars, interiors, etc.; one of the trickiest is visually compelling piping hot food, from which [genuine!] steam must rise according to popular expectations if not normal reality). -- Hoary 00:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really answer my question, I haven't been swayed by any arguments presented here. Four of the magazines in which he has contributed I could buy in my local newsagent off the shelf, his work has clearly been seen by an awful lot of people. Mallanox 01:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because many people have seen his work does not make him notable. In order to meet the notablity criteria we need multiple reputable sources asserting his notablity (ie articles about him), as it stands now all we really have is a list of times his photos have appeared in magazines, I want go back to my evo magazine example from above, many of the photographers who contribute to this magazine have much longer resumes, but since non of them have been written about (to my knowledge)none are notable, when some people write articles about Perreault then he can be included, until then he is just another comercial photographer. --Daniel J. Leivick 01:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Marquis 40 (the printed edition) has reviewed his latest book - I can't be more substantial than that because I don't have it yet. As far as the Evo magazine argument, please see my reply to your prior comment above Observer31 22:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A review of a book by Perreault is a step in the right direction, as for the evo comparison I think it is valid, it is a magazine about cars, the magazines represented above are about fetishs. In both cases the photographer is seprate from the subject and is thus not notable merely for having there photographs on the cover of a magazine. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I can't be more substantial than that because I don't have it yet" See, I have a problem with this. I have worked on a number of articles about notable - if not well-known - photographers (try Pierre Rossier, Ueno Hikoma, Uchida Kuichi, et al) and I didn't start their articles until I could be "more substantial" by having their work in hand. It takes some effort to produce a worthy article for an encyclopaedia, and it shouldn't be otherwise. Pinkville 02:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Pinkville. Supplying material for magazine covers shouldn't blindly justify notability. I don't see anywhere else bios about this person. He is no Helmut Newton, possibly wouldn't meet standards of pro photography in other fields. Also, references that lure to membership solicitation aren't very cool and smack of soapbox. -MURGH disc. 18:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with your delete position, but I do agree that, in an effort to shore up the article, the number of references going back to B. Beauchamp's and M. Perreault's site has gotten a bit out of hand. I will try to correct that when I have time. Observer31 00:57, 12 January 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Martin_Perreault&oldid=1166567405"