Deletion of Martin Perreault

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT||WP:CIVIL)

Comment: I see no value in running a checkuser.  My personal conjecture is at least some of you are #Meatpuppets|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 #Meatpuppets|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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry (WP:SOCK||WP:SOCK)

Comment: 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  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:V)

Comment: per nom. As said above, fails  (full of way too much personal info) and  to name a few. I suspect this also fails , and , depending on who actually wrote this. The SPA behind it looks suspicious
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:V||WP:BIO||WP:COI)

Comment: per nom. I have nothing against latex. Article does not cite |reliable sources. Fails ,  and . Even if Bianca Beauchamp is notable, being her photographer does not make one notable by association. Special:Contributions/IchiAi|IchiAi is a |single purpose account, and article may fail 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:BIO||WP:SELF||WP:V||WP:SPA||WP:COI)

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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Per Kevin Murray.  Purported sources all appear to fail .  Perhaps could be added to his girlfriend's article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: 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  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

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

Comment: 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:, |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: http://www.skintwo.com/ Skin Two, http://www.marquis.com/ Marquis, http://www.playboy.com/ Playboy, http://www.bizarremag.com/ Bizarre Magazine, http://www.penthouse.com/ Penthouse, http://www.juliestrain.com/ Julie Strain, http://www.rubberella.com/ Jean Bardot,http://www.emilymarilyn.com/ Emily Marilyn, http://www.darenzia.net/ Darenzia, http://www.tempestnyc.com/ Storm, http://www.suzanwayland.com/ Sway, http://www.masuimimax.com/ Masuimi Max).): 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  – I would say not
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:RS||WP:V||WP:SELF)

Comment: Perreault is clearly an excellent photographer, but one whose notability is not yet established.  The article fails  as it shows no independent verification of the details.  It also fails  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:OR)

Comment: 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  problems
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Autobiography (WP:AUTO)