Deletion of Siegfried Hansen (photographer)

Comment: No valid argument supplied for deletion and subject satisfies notability: a member of In-Public; 2 monographs; group exhibitions in notable venues (Deichtorhallen, Museum of Warsaw and Museo di Roma in Trastevere) and on various continents; solo exhibitions (at venues unknown to me or to Wikipedia); and inclusion in a number of survey publications on street photography including ''Street Photography Now.'' Coverage in  is not overwhelming but is ample: ''Die Zeit,'' ''Aesthetica,'' and ''HuffPost.'' The German Wikipedia deletion process appears to be a discussion rather than a vote. The discussion reads via translation to be full of sarcasm, as though something has wound people up the wrong way, presumably the subject's having edited the article themselves (under their own name). I cannot get behind reasoning such as this used in that discussion: "As a photo artist you should have a solo exhibition about every 18-24 months, at least a handful distributed to the country or Europe." (translation
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: No valid argument clearly supplied for deletion. One argument can, however, be inferred: "Over on de:WP, Hansen was judged not to merit an encyclopedia entry (and not merely an entry in German), QED." I've read Google's English quasi-translation of the discussion, and it's not so garbled that I can't get the gist of it. I'm not convinced. A lot of it is along the lines of: "He's less notable than are various unspecified photographers whose articles have been deleted." Even if this were true, it would be invalid here: see rguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Well, is he notable? There are chapters devoted to him in books from publishers of some merit; therefore yes he is notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A)