Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iwan Baan

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 keep. Snow keep. Deletion concerns have been addressed. Reliable sources currently in the article appear to establish the subject's notability. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 03:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iwan Baan[edit]

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

BLP lacking notability. This article has been a stub on here for nearly 2 years. This is a good photographer who takes pictures of things that are really notable and famous. I modestly feel that is not enough for our purposes on WP. There is one good source here, but that is all. I think we need several RS to indicate notability (some will argue even more for BLP). There is a link to an “encyclopedia Britannica” entry that had been created by a contributor (seems similar to the project here). A quick source search did not produce anything convincing to me (some inaugural award of questionable significance and numerous questionable websites). Turqoise127 20:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my nomination. Respectfully, Turqoise127 20:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Struck this duplicate !vote, as unless a nomination is explicitly listed as procedural, the nominator's opinion is presumed to be delete. Bongomatic 00:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep There is an in depth article in the NYT as well as another article in Arch Daily, an interview in Design Co and a review of his book in Metropolis Mag. By themselves, these are sufficient to meet WP:GNG, but they also show that WP:CREATIVE #1 "The person is regarded as an important figure" is met: "Just five years after he took up architectural photography, Mr. Baan is “remaking the genre,”", "one of the preeminent figures documenting the built environment today" "It is this ability to see beyond the standard architecture photographic trope of glorifying built structures as paeans to man’s genius, that makes Baan’s photographs so interesting" etc. Finally, there is a EB article on him - EB is in no way "similar to the project here" and inclusion there is almost certainly an indication that they should be included here. SmartSE (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a well-known and influential artist whose New York Times profile called him "the most peripatetic architectural photographer in the world as well as one of the most widely published." The evidence already presented (not to mention the additional material mentioned by Smartse) far exceeds any reasonable notability threshold. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Just in case anyone is a bit perplexed as to why this was nominated, Turqoise127 has a bit of a history of being pointy and the creator of this article nominated one of Turqoise127's articles a few weeks ago. SmartSE (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not nominate this article due to improper motivations or persuasions. I honestly believe this stub is lacking and does not meet WP:BIO standards. My argument is within the nom. I may be wrong, the community will decide. I do not appreciate an administrator chiming in here and discussing conduct issues from a while ago instead of content issues. I believe it says somewhere in the guidelines that is not to be done at AfD. If one made a bad decision once down the line, they are not immediately guilty of it every single time it happens in the future.Turqoise127 22:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. The single reference to the NYT in the original stub I created is more than sufficient to pass GNG. It is a full-length article in a "source of record" not about a local topic or a promotional topic that could impeach the independence of the coverage. This nomination is either in bad faith or incredibly ignorant. Given the experience of the nominator, I find the second explanation lacking in credibility, hence the "speedy keep" opinion here (including its imputation of lack of good faith). Bongomatic 01:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - the references in use and mentioned above show this person easily passes our notability criteria. Did the nominator even attempt to look for references? LadyofShalott 01:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When you google the subjects name in quotes all you get is extensive photos credited to his name. Notable?Turqoise127 04:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is that a rhetorical question? Drmies (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This guy is just crazy notable. Look at who publishes his photos, here and here and here and here and here. This guy would be a keeper even if he weren't written about, given how obviously important he is. Oh, also, this. Damn, he gets more Google Book hits than I do. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although it is quite obvious how this AfD fared, allow me please the following argument regarding my nomination not being "bad faith"; Drmies, your "crazy notable" "here and here and here" sources are poor. The first is but a picture within a text credited to the subject. The second one I cant even find a mention of him, but admittedly I dont speak french. The third is the time article we discussed already... So it seems you are blowing smoke to create an appearance of sources and importance. Oh, and the Google book hits and news hits are poor too, photos credited to our photographer. I repeat, there is one and only one source, the Times one. If that is enough, so be it. i honestly feel this is not notable; a good photographer.
Secondly, I am happy to see the usual suspects (except for Axiloxos) strong arming the community and exerting their opinions as the law. Strength in numbers. Still. And now two of you are admins. Who was it that said... no injustice will last forever?Turqoise127 04:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the widespread use of his work in significant publications (including newspapers) is important (though unnecessary in this case given the third-party coverage of the subject that was the basis of the original stub). It is notoriously difficult to find sources about journalists and photojournalists that most people educated about the topic would find (real-world, not Wikipedia) notable. WP:CREATIVE is inadequate to the task for journalists and photojournalists, but actual AfD discussions have reflected this inadequacy and bios on such professionals—even without the coverage "of"—by resulting in "keep".
Keep the faith! Fight injustice! (Don't bother to try to build the encyclopedia!) Bongomatic 04:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! A Google search for '"Iwan Baan" exhibition" demonstrates beyond all doubt that he meets WP:CREATIVE. Here is a solo exhibition that appears to be "significant". ]http://www.floornature.com/architecture-news/news-iwan-baan-and-architecture-photography-6541/ This one] maybe. An award suggesting that the subject is "regarded as an important figure ... by peers" (the receipt of this award was widely covered). At least one other solo exhibition (ACME Los Angeles) is covered, and I hadn't even really started looking. Bongomatic 07:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. Thanks. You sure do defend and bludgeon a lot for someone who is sure of notability. Every time I challenge an article you like you seem to respond that "it's notoriously difficult to find sources... bla ...bla" What does that say? Anyhow, please do not tell me "not to try and build the encyclopedia", that's WP:uncivil.Turqoise127 03:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Turqoise, we're really all the same person. Check it and you'll see we're never logged in at the same time. Notice also that I didn't comment on bad faith, though, well. Most of all, you miss the point entirely. My sources are fantastic: they are among the most notable publications in the world and they run the guy's photos. It's not as hot as a screenshot of a syllabus on the local Croatian news, but if all those publications run the guy's photos, and of all those books publish them, then, ahem, well, you can bet he's notable. And nominating an article on a subject like that--well, what did you expect to happen? The Lady pointed out WP:BEFORE, and following its guidelines can save you a lot of embarrassment (unfortunately, I speak from experience). But really, since this AfD should result in a speedy keep ASAP, wow that guy is crazy notable! I'm proud of my countryman! Drmies (talk) 04:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and the Lady was always an admin already, and she's the nice one. I got it by strong-arming over two hundred otherwise sane people. That you would try to insult me, for a few years now, that's fine--but don't impugn her. Hey, you're welcome to start your own cabal. Or draw some conclusions from the fact that you haven't been able to form one. Drmies (talk) 04:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was about you and SmartSE. I am not insulting anyone. Nice job defending her honor, though, thats points. Thats the difference between us, kind sir, I dont need to be a part of something to feel important. Groups are for cowards.
You guys have grown meaner over time. What's up, need to talk about it?Turqoise127 03:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We need to talk about the article here. Do you agree notability is now sufficiently established? If no, why?— Racconish Tk 08:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the excellent sources brought forth by SmartSE that demonstrate notability quite convincingly. Disclosure: I have had occasional pleasant and thought-provoking interactions with Administrator Drmies, for the purpose of improving this wonderful encyclopedia. If that makes me part of a "cabal", then I plead "guilty as charged". As for WP:BEFORE, I revere its recommendations as truly "wise precepts" that every editor here should meditate upon daily. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why thank you Cullen. There's a bacon butty in it for you, as a bribe. Seriously, do you ever have where you read one of our articles and you go, "Man, I wish I could do that for a living?" I have that here. "Iwan" is also a really cool name, of course. Drmies (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Specific treatment by reliable sources, including Britannica. 2 awards (Julius Shulman 2010 + DAM Architectural book 2010), 15 books, 3 exhibitions. There is barely an issue of the Architectural Review without pictures from him.— Racconish Tk 07:40, 11 November 2011 (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/Iwan_Baan&oldid=1144341372"