Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amory N. Hardy

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. With due respect to Fram and Ravenswing's deletion arguments, the consensus evident is tending towards keeping this article. I would suggest further discussions on the talk page of the article with respect to the points brought forward by the delete !voters, before future renomination of this article for deletion. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 07:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amory N. Hardy[edit]

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

No evidence of notability for this photographer, no indepth reliable sources about him, fails WP:BIO. Fram (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Frankly, I could see an A7 for failure to make an assertion of notability, because even after you prodded it, the article creator didn't trouble to provide any evidence or rationale save for a couple links to more of his work. No doubt there'll be 'keep' proponents who'll argue that It's So Hard To Find Info about 19th century figures, but first someone needs to establish a legitimate basis to consider him notable. Ravenswing 19:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hardy's work is in several major American research collections (WP:CREATIVE 4.d.): Smithsonian, Library of Congress, and Harvard University, among others. He also created visual portraits of 19th c. historical figures such as justice O.W. Holmes Jr. and U.S. president Arthur. -- M2545 (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think I agree. Criterion #4 holds "The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." That some of his works are among the holdings of Harvard or the LOC doesn't meet that; it's whether his works are on display in their collections. Is there any reason to believe that's the case? For someone who seems to lack any biography or critical examination, we need more than "Among the several thousand period photographs Harvard owns, some were taken by this guy." Ravenswing 21:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentYou have to understand how permanent collections of museums work. I'm really holding back here when I politely explain that ALL major museums only exhibit a very small portion of their permanent collections. Saying someone does not meet part d) of WP:ARTIST because their work is in the permanent collection of, say the LOC or Harvard or the Smithsonian, but it's not on exhibiton, is a statement that is high on the sale of ridiculous statements. I'm really trying to be polite here. The Library of Congress has 164 Million items in their collection, The Smithsonian has 156 million items. In fact, they have a terrific web site where they explicity say this: "Only a small portion of the Smithsonian’s collections (estimated at less than 2 percent) is on display in the museums at any given time." 104.163.142.4 (talk) 06:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I understand that perfectly well, and that's exactly my point. We're talking notability here. Someone is "notable" because the world notices you, and the world notices you when your artwork's on display. What is high on the scale of ridiculous statements is the premise that someone's notable because his works are in Drawer 47-B in Vault 71 of the Smithsonian's basement. It's just this kind of award inflation that's marred notability criteria all around Wikipedia, in similar fashion to "Everyone who's ever played in the majors is notable, including a guy known only to us as "J Smith," who pitched one inning for the Worcester Ruby Legs in 1878" (NSPORTS) or "He's notable because he's had significant roles in several stage performances, all out of a community light opera in Hartford" (NACTOR). (Heck, if that's how it goes, as a multiply-published author with my works (by statute) sent to the LOC's collection, then I'm entitled to an article, which is another of those ridiculous statements.) Ravenswing 09:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can't really argue your position as it is untenable. With respect, you don't seem to understand how museums work. The notability-giving act exists in the curation-- when the work is chosen for the collection, it becomes notable. Whether or not it is exhibited is not really a consideration. Also, the permanent-collection-items-must-be-exhibited criteria you are claiming is entirely your own invention. I do not see it being mentioned anywhere in the policy for WP:Creative or WP:Artist. What about artists who are in the collection, are exhibited and then are put into storage? Are they no longer notable, since the world only "notices you when your artwork's on display"? Thus, the criteria you propose is ridiculous. You're entitled to hold that view though. I'd encourage you to read up on permanent collections, curators and exhibitions and on how these distinct processes operate and contribute to notability in artists. 104.163.142.4 (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a good introduction to the problems of permanent collections.104.163.142.4 (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenswing, you're not saying that this article fails the established notability test; you're instead arguing for a change to this notability test. And I have some sympathy for what you're saying. Still, if we were toying with the idea of altering notability tests to make them represent actual notability (as the word is understood outside Wikipedia), then my own first concern would be the welcome shown here to bric-à-brac from miscellaneous "universes" and "franchises" of the entertainment industry (see this little list for a small and very humdrum sample). However, an AfD isn't the place for such attempts at alteration. -- Hoary (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand very well how museums work (thank you for your condescension, 104.163.142.4, from your great experience of five days on Wikipedia). What I am saying is that "represented" doesn't mean "sitting in a basement drawer." I'm saying that it means "on display." Obviously pieces get rotated in and out, and obviously notability is not temporary, but I really do challenge either of you -- or anyone, really -- to demonstrate that Hardy's work ever has been given any measure of public display beyond digital links. Any published biographies? Any mention in works on photographic history? Ravenswing 02:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't explained what happens to artists with permanent collection artworks that are on display or a month but then put into storage. Do they lose their notability? You're also completely ignoring the fact that museums typically show a very small part of their permanent collections. Your ideas about notability in permanent collections are rational, but they ignore the way museums and permanent colelcitons have worked for centuries, and instead propose a new standard of WP:Notability for creative workers. I'd suggest reading up on how museum permanent collections work. The curators and committees that select works for permanent collections are analogous to the editors and editorial committees that select writing for publication in newspapers, magazines and books. It's the act of selection that confers notability. Once selected, it matters little if the work is stored for a few decades and shown for omly a month. Similarly, a Pulitzer prize winning book stored in a library basement is no less of notable book. 104.163.142.4 (talk) 09:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised the question of how to interpret "represented" at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). -- Hoary (talk) 12:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Among the several thousand period photographs Harvard owns, some were taken by this guy. Ditto for several places other than Harvard. And we are given references for these claims. So he's "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums". Being 'represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums" is indeed not the same thing as being displayed in a gallery or museum; but WP:ARTIST talks of the former, not the latter. -- Hoary (talk) 04:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is in the permanent collection of several major museums. This should probably be withdrawn, as since the nomination User:M2545 M2545 did a spectacular job improving the article, which included the addition of an enormous list of permanent collections. He's in numerous permanent collections of major museums, which means he meets WP:ARTIST, so there is not much to discuss here. 104.163.142.4 (talk) 06:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree, and ass explained above this shows a spectacular misunderstanding of WP:ARTIST. He has not received any significant attention, his work is in thecollection (though most or all of it not on display in any case) because of the sitters, not because he made these photographs. Harvard University Archives (one of the many collections at Harvard) contains more than 20,000 portrait photographs alone, and many more with other subjects. This is not distinctive enough by far. I see no reason to withdraw this at all. Fram (talk) 07:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The recent commendable improvements to this article by User:M2545 show notability. This is now a well referenced biography. Extensive museum holdings help establish notability even if the photos are not currently on display. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:15, 8 August 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.