Deletion of Steve Azzara

Comment: I can't find any evidence of |significant, independent coverage; http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?q=%22Steve+Azzara%22&btnG=Search&hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8 Google News just brings up a press release and a handful of photo credits, http://books.google.co.uk/books?q=%22Steve%20Azzara%22&hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=np Google Books likewise. Taking a photograph for a book's cover is not the same as being the author of that book, and even if it was, the claim that the book was of "major significance" would have to be backed up with |something more than the assertion of a Wikipedia editor
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS)

Comment: fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: No notability established by any definition.  Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: If you look at the article now, I have included a reference for a published work Azzara was involved in as a collaborator. This entry does meet the basic criteria for '''Creative Professionals''' required by Wikipedia notability criteria  '''“the person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work..."'''.   The work is of  major significance and one we should all be aware of.  If you don’t think so I think those who have, or deal with those with , HIV would have issue with that.   If you truly have no bias toward this article or person, I would ask you as a reasonable individual to drop your deletion debate of this article.  I will continue to build my case, either way, and continue to add citations to show the articles validity
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CREATIVE)

Comment: LAntonio, if you have addional contributions to this debate, it is custom to precede them by "Comment", not repeat your !vote (the exclamation mark means that this is actually not a vote, as it is the arguments that count, not the simple number of opinions expressed). Removing comments or tags placed by other editors is considered vandalism, I guess you're new here and don't know this, but you should not do this kind of things. Concerning possible , the portrait that you uploaded from Steve Azzara has as copyright statement that you are the owner of the copyright and release it into the public domain. On Azzara's website the same photograph is posted, attributed to "Sanders McNew". If you're that person, there is no problem from a copyright point of view, however, McNew obviously has a close relationship with Azzara and this is indicative of a conflict of interest. As for the fact that Azzara has produced creative works, nobody is contesting that, but that is not enough to establish notability. Unless you can come up with independent verifiable secundary sources (see ), this article is going to be deleted
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:RS)

Comment: A photographer is an artist and a '''Creative Professional''' (if you have seen Azzara's amassed work on Corbis that alone is proof of creative professional work) . '''PORTRAIT''' photography is a '''collaborative''' affort by its very nature.  A portrait is a collaboration between artist and subject.  The definition is rather simple and clear don't you think? Noted "thanks" is not a requirement to meet the collaborative criteria- just the publication, so the citations stands. I have even spoke to Marvelyn Brown (author of The Nake Truth) about it and she confirmed the collaboration.  I'm willing to let that one go! As for the whole "vanity" claim, I am a neutral third-party so this claim is also invalid. I really hope you see the reason in this and discontinue this debate
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CREATIVE)