Deletion of Adam Ferguson (photographer)

Comment: I know the consensus so far has been 'delete', but I did a bit of in-depth searching and found some non-trivial coverage to satisfy  - namely http://www.fotofreo.com/2008/projections2008-1.phphttp://www.viiphoto.com/more-photographer.php?photographer=Adam%20Fergusonhttp://www.100eyes.org/2009/11/adam-ferguson/http://www.cdp.edu.au/cdp/conferences-and-events/speakershttp://current.com/items/89015424_adam-ferguson-his-lens-on-manipur.htm, and to some extent http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2009/10/02/picturing-americans-at-war-in-afghanistan/ (the first one also goes part-way to satisfying 's 'significant exhibition' criterion). The list goes on. Therefore, I'd say that this article satisfies the |general notability guideline - ''significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:CREATIVE||WP:GNG)

Comment: without prejudice.  This was a tough one for me, I thought that this person ''should'' be notable enough as per , but apparently he lacks the non-trivial coverage from multiple third party sources.  That's not to say there never will be such sources available, so perhaps in time this one can be recreated
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Again, as with the afd for Emma Summerton this article does fail  but is still about someone who is notable enough for an article on wikipedia.  Not all photographers have to be very creative to be notable - some are notable for their commercial success, for example.  Their are many sources available to show that this person is notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CREATIVE)

Comment: Passes . Coverage in Photo District News and Time is non-trivial in my opinion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)