Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francisco Peralta Torrejón: Difference between revisions

Francisco Peralta Torrejón (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Austrian photographer (BLP). Sources all seem to be work by the subject, rather than about him. I don’t immediately see any evidence that he has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of himself, as required for WP:BASIC. The article reads very much like a WP:RESUME. Dionysodorus (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He has worked worldwide (there is proof for it). His pictures are also used worldwide (there is also proof for it). I do not know any other photographer with that many opera houses on his list (Australia, America, Asia and all over Europa). Of course you can delete this article due to formal reasons, but it would be a loss for Wikipedia.–Donna Gedenk (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. La Scala is the most important opera house of the world, many operas by Verdi and Puccini were presented there for the first time, Maria Callas devoted a great part of her career to this opera house. I came here to document the theatre photographers of La Scala and of Salzburg Festival, the most prestigious festival of opera and classical music in the world. I started with Francisco Peralta Torrejón (who worked in both La Scala and Salzburg), Erio Piccagliani (Scala), Věra Caltová (Plzeň) and Luigi Caputo (Salzburg). There are very few photographers admitted to La Scala, so in my eyes, EVERY photographer who was admitted is relevant. I am preparing further articles about theatre photographers — Ludwig Gutmann and Pedro Kramreiter (both Vienna), Silvia Lelli und Roberto Masotti (both Scala), Maria Baranova and Marc J. Franklin (both New York). Right from the beginning I was treated very badly by user Cloventt, he even filed a Notice of edit warring against me. You can see his Delete above and in the deletion requests against The Theatre Times (speedy keep) and Todd Watts (speedy keep). This is personal. I feel persecuted. He follows my path step by step and the deletion requests are filed by his friends from Down Under. Yes, you can delete this article. But I do not know if I will be able to work here (for free) any longer if my ambitions (to write good articles about great photographers) are destroyed.Photographer’s Box (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Photographer’s Box: Do you have a policy-based argument for retention here, e.g. based on WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NARTIST? I’d be very happy to keep this if so, but we don’t consider people to be notable simply because they have worked for prestigious institutions, unless they have received coverage or recognition in their own right of a kind that satisfies our guidelines. For instance, we routinely delete articles on Oxbridge and Ivy League academics, or on BBC or CNN journalists, etc., if they cannot be shown to be independently notable. Personally I have the highest opinion of La Scala and the Salzburg festival, as well as of Cambridge University and the BBC, but under our policies none of these confers intrinsic notability on the people that work for them. (A relevant guideline here is WP:NOTINHERITED.)

The same would apply to any other articles you may write on photographers: if they have received significant coverage in their own right, or if they have received the other forms of recognition listed at WP:NARTIST, that’s great, but otherwise it is possible that they may be nominated here and deleted after a reasoned discussion.

We’re all volunteers here. I’m sure we all appreciate your enthusiasm to improve Wikipedia’s coverage of photographers, but at the same time we are doing our best to maintain Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. It’s not unreasonable for Wikipedia to make decisions about whether or not to keep articles; if you submitted articles to any other publication, that publication would also exercise its own editorial standards, and might turn them down. I myself have had articles rejected from publications in the past, and it is never enjoyable, but you can’t hold it against the editors of a publication that they uphold its rules for inclusion, whether those editors are salaried employees or a group of volunteer editors. Dionysodorus (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your conclusions are wrong. If they were right, no stage photographer would ever gain notabilty. WP:NENTERTAINER is the relevant guideline. Stage and stills photographers are usually mentioned in the credits. This person has made prolific contributions to a field of entertainment. He has worked in more then fifty opera houses [1] — and among them the best ones, La Scala, Salzburg, Vienna, Beijing, Sydney, Chicago, London, Paris and Madrid. Photographer’s Box (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But probably thousands of people have appeared in the credits of performances at multiple opera houses. If the guidelines worked in the manner that you are suggesting, almost anybody who had a reasonably successful career in opera would be eligible for an article, whereas in reality the guidelines are written in such a way as to ensure that only those who receive some kind of personal coverage or recognition are eligible.

In any case, I don’t see how WP:ENTERTAINER can apply, because it is restricted to “actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, pornographic actors, models, and celebrities”, and because “a significant role” is usually taken to imply (say) a role as a principal actor or presenter. The criterion isn’t intended to encompass everyone who may have been mentioned in the credits.

Stage photographers are subject to the same notability criteria as anyone else, and I expect that most of the stage photographers in the categories that you have linked do in fact include references to coverage of the photographer in their own right in reliable sources. If this is not so in any given case, the article is open to being nominated for deletion. Dionysodorus (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, this is odd. You link to the commons user MichelidesPeralta. That page is apparently operated by two people, the subject of this article (who also operates his own Commons profile commons:User:Francisco Peralta Torrejón), and commons:User:Christian Michelides, who have some sort of professional connection. The article for Christian Michelides has been extensively edited by blocked sockpuppet accounts confirmed to be the subject, as well as a lot of IP edits. Looking at photos under commons:Category:Photographs by Francisco Peralta Torrejón uploads have been made by a variety of accounts all claiming ownership (such as commons:User:Donna Gedenk and commons:User:Praxis Loewengasse), with copyright then later cleared at VRT presumably by Torrejón. Torrejón also operates a DE wiki account. This is a strange network of accounts. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 22:38, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Photographer’s Box and Donna Gedenk have just been editing the Christian Michelides article in the last few months/days also.

Donna Gedenk had extensive conversations with the blocked sockmaster account attributed to Christian Michelides on their talk page. Another account with the name User:Gedenker is a confirmed sock of Michelides. This smells to high heaven. I think we maybe need to reopen the sockpuppet investigation, and probably some of these articles need WP:TNT. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 22:53, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cloventt: I can see that the articles for Peralta and Michelides on foreign-language Wikipedias have also been edited by a similar group of accounts, including Michelides’ named account and e.g. Potsdamergänzer. So anyone who revives the sock investigation should probably consider any accounts substantially editing those pages too. Dionysodorus (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cloventt: You were on the wrong side with The Theatre Times and with Todd Watts. Could it be that you are wrong again? You list a number of suspicious IP adresses from all over the world — China, South Korea, Ucraine (twice), Germany and Austria. In order to hide his identity, the devil travels constantly around the world and acts there secretly on behalf of his Faust, really? I fear we are losing track. The issue here is: Is Mr. Peralta Torrejón notable or not …..? Photographer’s Box (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The category of his images is large, and several appear as (impressive) lead images (Lohengrin), and others commemorate Jews who were murdered, so I’ll never understand why we would not tell readers what kind of a person he is. —Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete I want to keep this page–the photography is impressive a gorgeous however with the current rules on the platform per secondary sources I haven’t found enough that would justify the page–at least in English. I think I’m going to keep searching though–it appears he captured important moments from one of the top theaters in the world. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]