Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodney Lough Jr.
- 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The result was Withdrawn. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on offline sources. Gigs (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rodney Lough Jr. (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)
Insufficient secondary source coverage to meet notability standards. Some minor coverage in Outdoor Photographer, and apparently another story in Inside Analog Photography, but I won't access the latter since the URL sets off malware detection in Chrome. The rest of the cited sources are press releases or photo credits.
Article has been subject to a constant barrage of promotional and puffery edits by Lough or his agents since it was created by an SPA in 2008. At one point he edit warred in an attempt to add a disclaimer that the article had been "OVER EDITED BY WIKI" (his caps).
This article has been a constant drain on editorial resources here, and given the very weak notability of the subject, we should just delete it. Gigs (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I Disagree
There had clearly been a great deal of contention between Lough and WIkipedia editors two or more years ago, and I can see the documentation of that, but constant barrage? Constant drain on editors? We have different definitions of "constant" I think, and I think we can all agree that these statements are a bit over the top.
I don't understand why all my edits were taken down. I'm a fan and a collector of Lough's work, and I noticed his page was sorely in need of some updates. So I poked around and made some. I admit that I'm new to Wikipedia in general, and maybe I'm still learning the rules, but with regard to deletion and notability, I'm very confused.
I decided to read back through all the squabbling from the past to get a better sense of what is going on here. It is well documented that notability had already been established if you look back in the history of this page. If you want to see an example of notability, just look at the Smithsonian's own website: http://www.mnh.si.edu/exhibits/natures_best_2007/gallery/flygeyser.html
That piece was on display in 2007 and 2008, and is now part of the Smithsonian's permanent collection. I see the same honor mentioned on Peter Lik's wikipedia page, and I can only assume that this is part of why Lik has a page. As far as I'm concerned, if he is in the Smithsonian, he is notable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Lik
Also, there is a Popular Photography Magazine article featuring a profile on Clyde Butcher and Rodney Lough Jr. This is a link to he photo spread from the issue, but the full copy of the text is not listed for whatever reason. http://www.popphoto.com/gallery/viewfinder-within In this article you can plainly see photos of Lough and taken by Lough alongside those of Clyde Butcher. This Clyde Butcher also has a wikipedia page, and he doesn't seem any more or less notable than either Lik or Lough from where I'm sitting. I subscribe to Pop Photo, and I'm sure I have that issue lying around here somewhere. If I can find it I will add the bilbio info on it.
Clyde Butcher: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clyde_Butcher
Anyway, what I'm getting at here with my examples is you need to be consistent. If we take down Lough, then you really need to take down Clyde Butcher and Peter Lik as well. Don't you think? Don't misunderstand, I think taking down any of the three of them is silly, but if one is not notable, then none are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealJoeyMoore (talk • contribs)
- "Joey", it's interesting how you fail to sign your comments in the same way that Lough always does. <redacted overly harsh comments> Gigs (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- SPI has been opened. Gigs (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, Can We Enter Into a Reasonable Dialogue?
I don't know what you're talking about, but I don't understand why you chose to ignore my points. Rather than address what I said, you attacked me personally. I'm happy to supply proof of my identity. My full name is Joseph Michael Moore, and I was born in Chicago, Illinois and spent most of my life living in Phoenix, Arizona. I am a writer by trade, mostly in social media and marketing, which is maybe why my writing on here was too much "puffery" as I read. I apologize for that, but I'm new here. I am happy to provide some evidence. Photo ID? Facebook page? Let me know.
Questioning my identity doesn't change what I said above. Did you even read what I wrote? There is evidence there to back up what I'm trying to say. I'm not even defending any specific edit that I made, because (as I said) I am still learning wikipedia rules, and I can see where I may have made some mistakes. All I am pointing out is the legitimacy of the "notability" of the page. Address what I have said please, not who you think I am. That would be appreciated. Otherwise, we are all just reduced to schoolyard name-calling, which is what happened in the past on this page's discussion, and I don't want to be any part of that. We are adults, so let's discuss this as such. Please? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealJoeyMoore (talk • contribs) 19:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Having a photo published by a notable publisher does not make someone notable. A photo credit is not "significant coverage". The argument that other similar articles exist is likewise invalid. I looked up the text of the article you mentioned earlier: here. It is not much more than a passing mention of Lough, and is mostly about Butcher. It couldn't be used to source much of anything about Lough, except for maybe one sentence about his views on non-technical approaches to photography. Gigs (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for shifting gears. I appreciate that. But what about the Smithsonian? The photo I linked to is housed in their permanent collection. It won the Windland Smith RIce International Awards, the same award that Peter Lik won in 2011. His wikipedia page lists it without citation at all, and I have provided you with a link to Lough's. I happen to know that Lik DID win that award, so I'm definitely not disputing his claim, but I'm just saying if an artist in any medium has a piece in the Smithsonian, they seem pretty noteworthy to me.
And one thing I didn't mention before: Popular Photography Magazine - October 2012 issue, volume 76, issue no 10. I have the issue in my hand, but you can also verify yourself. There is a seven page featured article on Rodney Lough Jr. alone and his work. Pages 53 - 56 and continued on page 104 - 105. I understand that, as you say, having a photo published once isn't noteworthy, but Pop Photo is a large publication, and according to its wikipedia page, it enjoys the "largest circulation of any imaging magazine," with a staff "twice the size of its nearest competitor." It reaches an estimated audience of more than two million people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Photography
In the documentation you can find that the noteworthiness of this pages was already challenged and established when Lough and the editors were arguing years ago. Since then there is even more evidence, such as this Pop Photo article. Can we lay this to rest now, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealJoeyMoore (talk • contribs) 19:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was referring to the Smithsonian with my comment: A photo credit is not "significant coverage". We require significant coverage in secondary sources. It's an achievement, sure, but we need coverage in order to write a verifiable article. I took a look at the article history for Peter Lik and it looks like there's editing with a conflict of interest occurring there as well, so please don't assume that just because something exists in that article that it's OK for this one. Please sign your comments with four tildes at the end, like ~~~~. Gigs (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies about the signature. I didn't know how to do that.
What about the recent seven page featured article in the largest photography magazine that has a readership of more than two million people? That doesn't count as significant coverage in secondary sources? They are maybe the largest printed authority on photography in the english speaking world. I would think a large feature in there counts. I realize that without a subscription you probably can't access this issue in their online archive, but what else can I do? Can someone at wikipedia order the back issue? ...is there even someone at wikipedia to do that? I honestly don't know how this works. Or would you like me to scan each page in and upload it to the internet? I can do that, but I imagine Pop Photo would have a problem with that. Is there another work around to provide this evidence? TheRealJoeyMoore (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That counts as coverage. It's always difficult to judge notability when there are sources that are not accessible online. Please don't post it on the Internet, as that would be copyright infringement. Gigs (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2012 (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.