Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Wayda
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. Non-admin closure. Swarm(Talk) 00:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stephen Wayda[edit]
- Stephen Wayda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete as notability is not demonstrated within the article. JBsupreme (talk)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I usually only check out AFDs when there's another AFD I'm involved with around the same time. When I saw this AFD, I thought, "huh, there's another Stephen Wayda besides the photographer?" I just assumed this couldn't be the photographer; I was surprised to see his bio up for deletion. Wayda is a well-known and notable glamor photographer. It's very hard to find info about him online, because anything about him is going to be drowned out by all the photo credits. I would point out that he's the target of a story in the magazine American Photo ([1]), Sep/Oct 2005, see reference at [2]; and has a published book with his photos of Pamela Anderson, see [3], [4] (the latter noting it's in the French National Library holdings). See also [5]. I'll bet that someone with access to an archive of photography magazines over the last 20 years or so will have a lot more references. Again, finding works online actually about Wayda is going to be a challenge, given that he has so many photo credits; but that's inherent when you have a prolific photographer, and entirely consistent with notability. TJRC (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Substantial coverage about this photographer is exactly what we need in order to qualify this subject for inclusion. I'm not sure the American Photo paragraph rises to the occasion, unless there is more than the excerpt included on the oak.cats.ohiou.edu website. (Is there?) JBsupreme (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand, but perhaps I didn't make my point very well. What I'm saying is that I'm pretty sure that there's substantial coverage of the photographer out there, for example in the photo magazines. The problem is that it's more difficult to find than usual because the photographer has so many credits, that, in most computerized searches (whether they be an internet search such as Google/Bing or a commercial service such as Lexis/Nexis)the vast majority of the hits will be for the photo credits. The hits for the photographer himself are going to be lost in the sea of hits on the credits. That doesn't mean the hits won't be there; but in a case like this, there will be a lot of chaff to get through to get to the wheat. That is, when searching for hits on a photographer like this, there will be a disproportionate amount of irrelevant hits. The challenge is to find the relevant ones among the irrelevant ones. Finding the hits, in this circumstance, is going to be a challenge. I have no doubt the hits will be there, but it will take someone with better Google-fu than I possess to find them among all the irrelevant hits. That's why I suggest someone with an archive of photo magazines will probably have the most pertinent material. TJRC (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand, needle in the haystack thing. JBsupreme (talk) 07:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure that a number of people live within reach of a library that keeps old runs of magazines. That's easy. The problems include finding stuff about this fellow (if there is any) within the magazines. I'd be dismayed by the lack of information on his own website. That he doesn't list features in magazines, etc, doesn't mean that there are very few, but it does raise that possibility. ¶ It's books and exhibitions that tend to attract what might be grandly called critical commentary. You can find further book titles, if there are any, via worldcat.org. Quick googling provides no evidence of any exhibition. -- Hoary (talk) 08:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand, but perhaps I didn't make my point very well. What I'm saying is that I'm pretty sure that there's substantial coverage of the photographer out there, for example in the photo magazines. The problem is that it's more difficult to find than usual because the photographer has so many credits, that, in most computerized searches (whether they be an internet search such as Google/Bing or a commercial service such as Lexis/Nexis)the vast majority of the hits will be for the photo credits. The hits for the photographer himself are going to be lost in the sea of hits on the credits. That doesn't mean the hits won't be there; but in a case like this, there will be a lot of chaff to get through to get to the wheat. That is, when searching for hits on a photographer like this, there will be a disproportionate amount of irrelevant hits. The challenge is to find the relevant ones among the irrelevant ones. Finding the hits, in this circumstance, is going to be a challenge. I have no doubt the hits will be there, but it will take someone with better Google-fu than I possess to find them among all the irrelevant hits. That's why I suggest someone with an archive of photo magazines will probably have the most pertinent material. TJRC (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Substantial coverage about this photographer is exactly what we need in order to qualify this subject for inclusion. I'm not sure the American Photo paragraph rises to the occasion, unless there is more than the excerpt included on the oak.cats.ohiou.edu website. (Is there?) JBsupreme (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and tag for improvement. I suspect that TJRC's instincts about offline sources are right. I did find this. -- Whpq (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Whpq's find is enough for somebody interested to work with. -- Hoary (talk) 05:15, 17 February 2010 (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.