Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jörg Colberg

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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jörg Colberg[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability in question, and most of article was promotional about subjects blog APlacerville (talk) 01:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First, though, a little attempt at an explanation may help. In "most of article was promotional about subjects blog" above, note the past tense. Why? Well, see the article's recent history. On 2 July, an IP reduced the byte-count by almost half. Here's the article as it was before 2 July. Colberg is perhaps best known for his blog. The blog has been praised. One example is in a subsequently deleted page of life.com. The article's talk page (recommended background reading for this AfD) suggests that quotation of this praise is something to which the nominator has a particular objection. This surprises me, as it seems easily covered by this section of the content guideline on citing sources. (You'll find my defence of it here.) ¶ The article now tells us that "[Colberg's] blog, Conscientious, started In [sic] 2002 [Citation needed]". Here's what it said till the arrival of the IP: "[Colberg's] blog, Conscientious, started on 9 July 2002. Early posts were short text messages (similar to what could later be accomplished via Twitter). The first substantive message was praise for the photography of Steve Pyke", with a reference to "July 2002 archive, Conscientious, saved by the Wayback Machine on 13 May 2003". The second sentence (with the Twitter reference) is editorializing that is better cut. Everything else can be seen in that Wayback link. But it seems that for the nominator, either a primary source cannot be a source for itself, or this material is unduly self-serving -- anyway, WP:V won't allow it (which is not how I interpret this). ¶ I'll concede that this was not an impressive article, and that it should be improved. But you're viewing it in an inferior state, and some of the charges made against it seem based on misreadings or misunderstandings. ¶ On the other hand, you should read anything I say with considerable scepticism, because "Assumption is Hoary may be subject of article since they originally wrote most of unsourced material" (added in this edit). -- Hoary (talk) 05:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Please just read Talk:Jörg Colberg. Follow the trail. Hoary wrote most of the article a few days after creation, and as he points out almost half of it was a promotional piece about Colberg’s blog. The article is about Colberg, and not the notability of his blog.

The comments by Hoary above are just one instance of poorly sourced opinion, and fail to mention the entire section being referenced. Here is the eschange from Talk:Jörg Colberg.

Colberg dates the start of his interest in photography to 1999. His blog, Conscientious, started on 9 July 2002. Early posts were short text messages (similar to what could later be accomplished via Twitter). The first substantive message was praise for the photography of Steve Pyke

I asked Hoary

’’How does a Citation to an archived blog identify the start of his interest in photography? Where are you pulling this from? It is an opinion that the first substantive message was about Steve Pyke. Linking back to Colberg's blog does not validate the claim. Your opinion on the matter is not a valid third party source. ‘’

Most of Hoary contributions to this article were promotional, or lack valid citations.

The article is not in an inferior state. The subject lacks notabilty. There are almost no third party sources for the subject, and he has made no clear contribution to the field of photography. Hoary says the blog has been praised, but one comment from Life.com suggest a minor acknowledgement for the blog. It does not suggest Colberg merits an article. Surely, there are more concrete third part source to confirm the notability of this subject? APlacerville (talk) 07:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @APlacerville: I stroke the above !vote, a nominator does not get an additional vote in an AfD discussion. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: (i) The "delete" not-vote immediately above is by the nominator. (ii) The comment immediately above says in part: "as [Hoary] points out almost half of [the article] was a promotional piece about Colberg’s blog". I point this out? Well well. I'm not aware that I point this out. Certainly I can't imagine myself pointing it out, not least because it's untrue. APlacerville, it appears that one of us is seriously deluded. (You or me? I invite others to judge.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am the initial author of this article. His notability is demonstrated by the fact he has had books published by a major publisher (Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics), and has a notable contribution in a book by another major publisher (Thames & Hudson); and his opinion on photography, via his blog, has been recognised as notable by Source, Wired, Sean O'Hagan, American Photo and Life. -Lopifalko (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Here is what I am stuggling with. The article originally claimed Colberg was also a photographer, curator, and judged photography competitions without giving any sources. Now Hoary is claiming that he is best known for his blog, and keeps referencing a life.com web post as proof for his notability, but Life.com lists 20 blogs on that post - with short blurbs about each. They include some personal Tumblr’s on the list. Clearly, this is not evidence of a significant contribution to the field of photography. If Colberg is notable, it should not be hard to find other sources, which validate his notability. The wired citation is a similar style to the Life.com post. It is a list of over 10 blogs. Recently, Sean O’hagan’s list of 8 online publications was added to the article, but Lopifalko embellishes the source by adding “few most recommended online photography websites,” O’Hagan does not state these are the few most recommended. This embellishment is attempting to make Colberg’s significance seem greater. All of these citations including the recently added Source Magazine (which is unauthored) are long lists of 10-20 blogs. None focus on Coelberg as making a major contribution to photography.

A bunch of websites saying Colberg’s blog is one of the the top 10-20 photography blogs online does not seem like the type of significant coverage stated in Wikipedia’s guidelines for notability.

Please just point us to some sources, which are reliable, and are not a list of blogs where Colberg’s significant contributions are documented. If you can do so, I will acknowledge his notability, and I am sure everyone will agree he warrants his own article.

At this point it is clear, Colberg is an educator, has a blog, writes introductory essays for books, and contributes to magazines (half of the citations are dedicated to his articles). But, when you add all this up it does not equate to the notability required for an individual article. At this point, it seems like an article about the top 10 photography blogs is where this content belongs.APlacerville (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

APlacerville claims that my contribution "embellishes the source by adding “few most recommended online photography websites,”" – The title of the source is "The best photography websites, publications and galleries", which lists 8 websites and publications (Colberg's category), and 7 physical galleries. Being one of eight "best" seems notable to me, and my "embellishment" is to try to translate O'Hagan's "best". The language I chose was "few most recommended", which seems appropriate to me as a translation from being amongst the best of 8. The Source article lists 10 blogs. Colberg's contributions to photography include that these respected sources recommend his opinion on "Contemporary fine art photography discussed and dissected", in the words of Sean O'Hagan. Do not be confused by the use of the word "blog" – it is not a website about his own life, but his writings on photography. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a no-brainer. As soon as I saw that he's authored two books, both published by the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics, I knew that this article is more than adequately supported in terms of notability. Then there are six less august publications to which he has formally contributed. Why was this brought to AfD???? Tony (talk) 04:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets notability requirements. References to blogs can be appropriate additions to biographies. Primary combined with secondary sources are also justified.--Ipigott (talk) 07:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Took for me quite a time to look thru the links and the discussion and I agree it's not an easy keep and go. Most of the links are not straightforward, but the combination of sources makes me feel that he meets WP:CREATIVE. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just barely. In one of the article refs, Wired calls him a "pioneer in photography blogging". He's a juror for the Prix Pictet, and I see plenty of other mentions. the credibility is there in numerous independent sources that talk about his contribution to the photo community. BUT... the article itself needs to reflect that he's just barely notable, rather than standout notable. I would say chop it by another 50%. The section "publications that include contributuions by..." is very weak and should likely be chopped or changed to publications, with the specific chapter contribution listed. Also, in coming to this conclusion I looked only at web references for the subject, and not at the history of the article. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 21:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I have not seen the publication but contributing to Image Makers, Image Takers: the essential guide to photography by those in the know by major publisher Thames & Hudson seems notable to me. Colberg is included in the "Retouching, And Online Curating And Publishing" chapter with Tim Barber and Pascal Dangin. In the hope of giving an example of the notability of other contributors without trying to create an undue impression of notability by association, the other contributors to the publication are Thomas Demand, William Eggleston, Boris Mikhailov, Stephen Shore, Mary Ellen Mark, Martin Parr, Eugene Richards, Sebastião Salgado, David LaChapelle, David Sims, Mario Sorrenti, Ellen von Unwerth, Tina Barney, Anton Corbijn, Rineke Dijkstra, Rankin, Fabrice Dall'Anese, Charles Freger, Naomi Harris, Jehad Nga, Alec Soth, Neil Stewart, Camilla Brown, Katherine Hinds, Dr Inka Graeve Ingelmann, Rudolf Kicken, Diane Dufour, Kathy Ryan, Gerhard Steidl, and Dan Torres. I read that it includes "3-4 pages interviews for each one of them" -Lopifalko (talk) 08:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I think it is good to look at another article created by Lopifalko.

David Campany is a notable writer in the field of photography. This should be the standard for a notable writer in the photography world. After writing his blog for 14 years Colberg has yet to come close to a notable writer. Barely notable should not be the criteria used. Comparison to his peers shows the shortcomings of this article.

Maybe in time, Colberg will reach the notability needed for an article, but at this point it seems he has not done so.

This discussion started because I cut a lot of unsourced claims from the article, which others refused to accept. If is does stay, I agree, it should be trimmed down even more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by APlacerville (talk • contribs) 03:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep Looks like Hoary did lots research on this AFD. I concur with his findings that the subject is notable and meets GNG. Maybeparaphrased (talk) 04:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*KeepI agree with what Hoary posts above. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 21:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC) Banned scok HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.