Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob (image)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Bill Fink. A Traintalk 06:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bob (image)

[edit]
Bob (image) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There does not see evidence that this particular photo--which is just one a series of similar ones for multiple people -- is notable. The LADN article is about the overall series. I note is was created with a COI derived from paid work for the artist DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DGG: The article has two (i.e., multiple) references that discuss the subject non-trivially and that are reliable independent verifiable secondary published sources. I thought that meant it qualified. Or maybe the fact that I was paid to create it mean that it is ipso faco disqualified (?). Also, can I ask where/ how you were able to read the LADN article, considering that it was published in 1992 and the Internet archives for this paper only go back to 1995? Thanks!KDS4444 (talk) 10:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...Or are you maybe basing your assessment of the newspaper article on the title of that article... Because if you are doing that, then I have to tell you that you have made a terrible mistake. I have the article in front of me right now, and it clearly discusses this particular image in great depth. I would like to hear your explanation as to why you think it says otherwise once you have read it. And if you have not even read it, then this nomination starts to look vindictive and unfounded. So please communicate with me about this. Thank you. KDS4444 (talk) 23:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you mind stating which parts? Because as far as I understand it, it qualifies by virtue of having multiple non-trivial instances of discussion in reliable independent secondary published sources (which you no doubt read yourself, yes? Can I ask how you found them? Because I tried to find them on the Internet and failed, but I could send them to you if you like). KDS4444 (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The image (and this article) fails because it is not the subject of the sources. I could see the artist potentially passing, but not this specific piece of art. Ifnord (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep by merging into Bill Fink (which is a submitted AfC draft). I'm going to set aside the issue of paid editing, since at AfD our task is to determine notability of the topic. The article has three offline references. I can take the creator's word for it that at least two of these deal with the specific artwork, but the only one I can see in snippet view on Google Books, The Advocate, is about a group of memorial works of which this is only one. Google doesn't even find Bob's last name there for me. Moreover, what I found by searching ("ashes" gets far more results than other words for the material) is that this is mentioned among his other works. There's quite a lot of bloggy coverage on-line of his technique of "Time and Matter Photography" in general: I'll cite here Oddity Central, which several others refer to as their source. The following don't, so far as I can see: Pondly, Amusing Planet, A Geeky World, Gadgetcrunch. In all of these the Bob picture is one example (the last is a teaser for a video and the Bob picture is there on the wall in the still image; a different kind of "one example"). The emphasis is rather on "human ashes" as one material he uses. These all seem to date to 2014. What puts it over the top for me and makes the artist (or rather his technique) meet GNG is this press release from 2016 that he created images out of ashes from a wildfire for a Forest Service fire prevention campaign. I think Bob (image) is a useful search term, since there was demonstrably news coverage (and the creator might possibly change my mind with stunning quotes from the two news articles that we are told are all about this image). But what's actually notable, in my view based on my search, is Bill Fink's art. So keep, and make a redirect. And the draft of the article on the artist needs expanding with other examples including the forest fire ashes. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Looking further, can I ask KDS4444 whether the PSA print campaign is the same Bill Fink? I see there is a San Francisco Chronicle travel writer, and that the artist is based in Southern California. On the other hand there's this on his technique from 2011. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I only have access to one of the three articles, the one from The Dallas World News, but that is about the subject. It discusses the photographs and the person who organized the exhibition, raises Christensen, quotes a couple of responses to the work, briefly describes Bill Fink, and includes quotes from Fink and Christensen's mother about the image. That said, I like the suggestion of adding it to a Bill Fink article, as personally I think it would be a bit more valuable to have an article on the artist rather than "Bob", but the sources are good. (I should note that these sources are pre-web, so I'm not expecting a lot to be found online). - Bilby (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Bill Fink. There are a few RS articles mentioning this work, but hard to say it is notable enough for its own page. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment AfD is about all aspects of WP:NOT, which deals with many things besides the policy section NOT INDISCRIMINATE that is the basis for notability guidelines. Of even more direct important is NOTADVOCACY, which includes both advertising and promotionalism. Paid editing almost inevitably leads to both promotionalism in making articles and POV coverage, which includes overcoverage of particular aspects. DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG: Okay, do you feel this article is somehow promotional? Because I wrote it intending to explain why I believed it to be notable— I did not include any puffery or any unverifiable qualitative remarks like "exceptional" or "amazing" or "incredible". I don't recall "overcoverage" being a reason for deletion. Have you read the Daily News article I asked you about earlier? Where did you find it? What did you think? KDS4444 (talk) 12:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: By "overcoverage of particular aspects", do you mean things like having an article on this particular work of his? In that case, what I found has brought me to the same conclusion (pending, as I say above, stunning sources that I did not find, which might be the ones that are cited and that I can't see). However, I do find the sources justify an article on Fink. To my mind this is ababy and bathwater case; for the good of the encyclopedia we shouldn't refuse to cover a notable topic in reaction to the overcoverage of one aspect of it (whether theoretical or actual). Yngvadottir (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I meant "focussing on this particular picture rather than the overall subject." I agree that an article on the artist might be OK. DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although if Bill Fink ceases to be a red link, merge will be a better choice. The sources aren't many, but just enough to pass the GNG, and given that this was pre-web there may be other print sources to use in the future. That said, if Bill Fink existed there wouldn't be enough to warrant this as a spin-off article, so should that situation change I'd be inclined to bring the two together. - Bilby (talk) 04:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's very little media coverage of this work, as one would expect if it were culturally significant, regardless of its pre-Internet provenance. I did find a blog discussing it.[[1]]. I'm not sure that Bill Fink has enough notability either. If an article on him is ever created, my blog link can serve as a starting point for interested editors to merge the info from this article and preserve the history of Mr. Christensen. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:GNG, my comment is above. Ifnord (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Yngvadottir, and merge with Bob Fink. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bob_(image)&oldid=1071933209"