Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The International Portfolio of Artists Photography

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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 07:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The International Portfolio of Artists Photography[edit]

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

Transferred from a PROD by User:Piotrus - reason was "I am unclear what this article is about, but my best guess is that it seems to be about a book that misses Wikipedia:Notability (books) requirement. The use of references is misleading; the one I checked ([1]) does not mention the book or its presumed author, Jacob." Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per my prod rationale, which I hope is sufficient here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Requests. Even before examining what are presented as sources to see if they indeed are sources, I note that much goes unsourced. I also notice that a lot of what appears to be sourced isn't directly about the book. That said, Wikipedia:Notability (books), cited by the Prokonsul, is an odd set of criteria. It seems to be intended for the kind of book whose author(s)/publisher hopes (however deludedly) will sell in the thousands (if not hundreds of thousands). But let's look at just one part of it: Books should have at a minimum an ISBN (for books published after 1975), be available at a dozen or more libraries and be catalogued by its country of origin's official or de facto national library. ... [B]ooks [may be] notable despite not meeting [this] threshold [standard]—but they will be rare. No they're not at all rare. (Just for starters, it was only in the 1980s that ISBNs became used for the majority of Japanese books, and several publishers of more or less notable Japanese books still don't use them.) And there are other oddities too. ¶ But back to the article. It claims (for example): Having contributed to the network of artists and artists' spaces working in this period, and with ongoing support from the Soros Foundation, New York, from '86 through '89, Jacob traveled bi-annually to Eastern Europe and the USSR to develop further projects with them. The American photographer and theorist Diane Neumaier, in her history of Soviet non-conformist photography, credits these projects as foundational to the work of later historians such as herself. If I understand this correctly, this is not about the ostensible subject of the article, but is instead about related but separate activities. If I'm right, cut; if I'm wrong, explain. Further, the article introduces a long list of what was included in "Jacob's Second Portfolio related productions related to Eastern European photography". I can't even parse that, but again it seems to be merely about "related" (How?) productions. If I'm right, cut; if I'm wrong, explain. -- Hoary (talk) 01:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As far as I can tell, this is a self-published art project that didn't rise to any notability. -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mikeblas, Piotrus and nom. in that order. --Bejnar (talk) 09:07, 17 June 2014 (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.