Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seph Lawless (2nd nomination)

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. WP:GNG reads: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The sources presented here and the article are far more than trivial mentions of the subject. Sources like this discuss his work, his influences, and what he has influenced. NeilN talk to me 21:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seph Lawless

Seph Lawless (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)

The previous afd in 2014 was non-consensus, but this is basically advertising for his self-published books. Everything else is simply notices, or a little PR DGG ( talk ) 19:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for the same reasons I outlined last time. Perhaps all his exposure is because he's really good at self-promotion, I don't know. However, his work has received significant exposure via CNN Money, ABC News, Weather Channel, BBC, and Huffington Post. This is exposure few photographers receive. It may or may not be merited, and it may or may not be fair, I'm not qualified to judge. But it appears he has achieved notability one way or the other. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Based on the criteria set out in WP:CREATIVE he does not meet any of the 4 requirements of notability for a Creative Person, or the criteria generally. There is no evidence that in the professional photography community he has significant recognition or reputation. He has not won minor or major awards (let alone multiple awards). He has not developed a new technique, style or subject matter (what he does, urban_exploration photography is very commonplace and he does not do it particularly well or uniquely). He has not generated a body of work that has generated an INDEPENDENT and notable work (i.e. he has not been the subject of a tv series, no books have been written about him that he did not write himself, or the like). His work is not part of any gallery permanent collections (minor or major galleries), reached the level of "significant monument", or been the subject or part of a significant exhibition. Simply being in the news does not make one notable for the purposes of a wikipedia entry. To be notable, they must be significant and noteworthy. An example of a photographer who is significant and is included in wikipedia would be Edward_Burtynsky (major international exhibitions, groundbreaking body of work, deemed significant by his peers, series of movies made about him, etc.) Jacobssteph (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So let's take a look. Before this second AfD had started, Jacobssteph had made 87 edits. (There haven't been any deleted contributions, so anyone may check the veracity of what I'm about to write.) Among these, 11 were to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seph Lawless, 23 were to Seph Lawless, 19 were to Talk:Seph Lawless, and 2 others had edit summaries mentioning Seph Lawless. There were 32 others, of which several might very well have been about Seph Lawless (but I can't be bothered to check). It's obvious that the majority of Jacobssteph's edits were directly related to Seph Lawless. I think we may say that their list of contributions suggests an extraordinary level of interest in Seph Lawless. (Their very first ten edits were to the first AfD.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You !voted on this AfD less than 5.5 hours after it was opened, even though you hadn't edited Wikipedia in six months. Prior to that, if we exclude your usertalk deletions, 79% (65/82) of your edits concerned Seph Lawless. Softlavender (talk) 05:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems like there are more than enough sources to satisfy entry here. Not sure why this is being nominated for deletion. Nominator needs to be more clear in their reasons or retract this nomination. Simply saying "this is advertising" is not enough. They must explain how. As always, burden of proof is on the nominator to tell us why Wikipedia would be better if this article was deleted, if they cannot do that, then the result must be a keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egaoblai (talk • contribs) 03:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For an artist or photographer, articles or news stories devoted solely to their works are considered "significant coverage", no matter the amount of text in the article. Therefore this subject meets WP:GNG: "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." This subject also meets its profession-specific notability guideline, WP:ARTIST: "3. The person has created ... a ... collective body of work, that has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Here is just some of that coverage: The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Daily News, Fast Company, ABC News, CNN Money, Slate, Fox News, Weather Channel, Vanity Fair (Italian), Business Insider, National Geographic, Vice, Amerikahaus (Germany exhibit), Complex [13], American Photo [14], International Business Times [15], CBC [16], [17], BBC [18], [19], San Francisco Chronicle [20], USA Today [21], [22], Boston Globe [23], Viceland [24]. That's just a small sampling that I was able to gather within 30 minutes (I don't want to spend all day on this), and there is a lot more available. Softlavender (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, let's take them from the top. The Guardian, good; The Telegraph, reliable source but not much there; The Daily News, good; Fast Company, good; [technical factors made the ABC News page too annoying; I didn't persist in attempting to get anything from it]; CNN Money, good; Slate, good; [I don't bother with Fox News]; Weather Channel, good; um, OK, enough. But there does seem to be quite a bit of junk in this article, too. DGG, you have said that "this is basically advertising for his self-published books. Everything else is simply notices, or a little PR". Do you still claim this? -- Hoary (talk) 09:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the case that "For an artist or photographer, articles or news stories devoted solely to their works are considered "significant coverage", no matter the amount of text in the article. " It has to be substantial coverage, and very much depends on not just the amount, but the nature ofwhat is said--it is not the reproduction of their work, but the critical commentary on it that matters. ` DGG ( talk ) 10:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to which guideline? And I've just provided 26 examples of significant coverage in reliable notable national and international sources, which I was able to gather in less than 15 minutes. That is just a fraction of the amount of RS significant national and international coverage on this person. Softlavender (talk) 10:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How many of those articles are about the subject himself, and not about the death of retail (or some other such topic) of which he is just one commentator (Guardian)? Being asked for comment on a topic is not the same as being the subject of the article. The list needs culling.Jacobssteph (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, your ... 's, Softlavender, removed the essential components of the wiki requirements. "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant body of work, and that the work must be subject to independent periodical articles or reviews. None of this is the case with the subject. The work is in no way significant, ground breaking, unique, or demonstrating a technique or subject matter that hadn't been covered before, or covered in this way. It is as generic as it comes these days. The significant component is more important than the coverage component (in fact is a precursor to it), because as the qualifications are written for Creative Professionals, an insignificant body of work that gets an inordinate amount of attention would not be deemed (in an of itself) to be wiki worthy... the media attention is supplementary ("In addition..."). Again, it not the "media attention" that is required to be significant. OK one last edit. Since SoftLavender asked "which guideline" (and Hoary asked about this as well) , I would say its the GNG provides that "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". In my opinion the coverage has been trivial, even if the source is notable. I agree with DGG's assertion that the coverage is not substantial in the nature of that coverage. Simply posting a bunch of links isn't sufficient to establish notability. Jacobssteph (talk) 00:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"But there does seem to be quite a bit of junk in this article". See WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, WP:NEGLECT, and WP:NOIMPROVEMENT. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried on two occasions recently to remove junk from this article to help us see the meat that was on the bone, but my edits were reverted. -Lopifalko (talk) 10:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You made a massive 2,805-byte removal of cited text [25] which was fully reverted by 78.26; you later made a similar 1,800-byte removal of cited text and I restored the relevant non-trivial portions of that. Softlavender (talk) 10:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it had citations, did not make it worthwhile information. -Lopifalko (talk) 11:30, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that way, then discuss on Talk and get consensus for the specific changes you want; an admin and another experienced editor reverted you, so the place to gain consensus would be the talk page. Softlavender (talk) 11:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's middle ground here. I had to fully revert Lopifalko because he removed a lot of material, some of which I felt was very important regarding his notability. They were then more selective in removal, much of which I agree with. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here are over three dozen links of usable, significant coverage in a variety of reliable sources, including international sources. There is at least twice as much as this available, but I didn't list everything, so this is just a sample. It also includes biographical information, etc.
Sample coverage
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

-- Softlavender (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of the fact that he easily satisfies WP:GNG. If one goes by WP:ARTIST, this page is a bit problematic (e.g. self-published items) but that does to matter as GNG is massively and easily met by RS. The fact that he does not look like a traditional famous artist does not matter here, as he's plainly notable by published sources. 198.58.171.47 (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of WP:ARTIST, he satisfies that many times over as well: "3. The person has created ... a ... collective body of work, that has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." -- Softlavender (talk) 07:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a couple of RS to the article. They were easy to find. This Global News article covering both his photographs and quoting the artist several times seems like a great source on a notable artist. I am really not sure what all the hullabaloo is about here. Basic GNG is clearly satisfied.198.58.171.47 (talk) 07:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boy, oh, boy is this one tough. I love the photos, but, as is clear from this page, from the article's talk page, and from the previous AfD, Lawless is not a randomly chosen pseudonym. He, or whoever works for him, has no scruples about knowingly breaking rules, using Wikipedia for undisclosed self-promo, creating sockpuppets, and using unreliable sources to inflate the page. Moreover, he cannot take advice. I might find it possible to iVote to keep if one of the many editors who have contributed to this oversourced puffery would cut it down to size, remove all of the unreliable sources and PROMO, and undertake to keep it that way.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say that the moral character of an article subject is relevant for deletion discussions.198.58.171.47 (talk) 01:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now why would you say that? Anyone who bothers to look at my contribs will see your statement is wildly incorrect. I contribute to many and varied articles. My point was that the morality of the article subject isn't relevant in a deletion discussion. I was not challenging your character as an editor.198.58.171.47 (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your first edit was 9 November. I should have said recent. It is unusual to have an IP make so many edits so fast, and in areas like AfD, and with such fluency in Wikispeak. And, yes, it is problematic to have editors who ignore our rules, my concern is with the behavior. You may well be a poor but honest farm boy, but surely you understand that the density of IP, sock and meat puppet edits on the Lawless page - and at this AfD - is problematic. It makes me suspicious. You would, by the way, be taken more seriously if you christened yourself.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been tracking the Seph Lawless article and the users who edit it, its talkpage, and its AfDs since January 2015, and this Canadian IP is an unrelated anomaly, especially since this AfD was not filed until 20 November. I don't know if the IP is someone who edits via IPs that change every so often (the most likely scenario), or if they are someone logged out (unlikely and WP:ABF), but they appear sane, uninvolved, and wiki-knowledgeable. Remember WP:IPs are human too and deserve just as much respect unless it's otherwise obvious. Softlavender (talk) 01:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the IP here. (I took a plane today and have a new IP and location.) Kudos to the editor above for treating IPs with respect. My apologies too, as I had not really bothered to read about the many "IP, sock and meat puppet edits". I tend to think that stuff does not really matter once the article is back under control of the good editors. It's like what they say about sausages: you do not want to see how they are made. When I looked for sources via Google news, many good Canadian news sources came up. I've seen other articles pass AfD with only three or four good sources. This one has many multiples of that.174.119.49.210 (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete unless WP:HEYMANN: Article and its history of PROMO is so egregious that I would be willing to change to keep on condition that the PROMO is removed and the article tightened so that the text covers only notable aspects of topic that are reliably sourced; preferably 2 secondary WP:RS for each statement. This is, for me, a highly unusual iVote. In general, I am tolerant of articles written to promote careers and similar, as long as the sources exist. Here, however, the manipulation of Wikipedia is so egregious and longstanding despite warnings on talk page, and at this and previous AfD that I think it is time to crack down.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It is odd that there are no sources showing art critics or historians discussing him within the long tradition of the painting and photography of ruins. It is also odd with his photo appearing everywhere that he is not notable enough for his real name to have been reliably published. Or his hometown, high school and education. This lack shows that he's not all that notable. More to the point, I cleaned up some of the text because since his name is also unknown the Cleveland childhood and auto factory worker father must be regarded as unsubstantiated assertions by Lawless and , if used, framed by text along the lines of "according to Lawless" until this sort of biographical info is published by independent, reliable sources. Details about his personal life need to be stated "according to Lawless" until this sort of info can be reliably sourced. Nevertheless, We can Keep the article not because, as I mentioned above, I had seen his work in a magazine and liked it, but because there is WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SIGCIV of someone whose accomplshments indicate lack of ntability is normally the result of promotionalism . Fortunately, GNG does no guarantee an article. DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This second nomination surprised me. There seemed to be a (rather understandable) lack of "AGF", combined with an objection to what strikes me as unobjectionable. DGG added that what's required "has to be substantial coverage, and very much depends on not just the amount, but the nature ofwhat is said--it is not the reproduction of their work, but the critical commentary on it that matters." Strictly, he's right. Also, [some] OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid defence. But if we call "crap" what doesn't meet these standards, then what do we do upon realizing that GIGABYTESOFOTHERCRAPEXISTS? It's not epidemic; it's endemic. I've perpetrated a lot of it myself. (And I'd be amazed if DGG hasn't done so in his time.) ¶ Props to DGG for not kowtowing to orthodoxy, because here's what he says on his user page (with my numbering added): "[...] Therefore I judge which way to argue [a question of notability] by my own judgment about whether it is appropriate for Wikipedia to have an article, using rational criteria as / (1) real world importance / (2) principal national organization of its type / (3) highest level award / (4) market share / (5) size / (6) historical significance / (7) promotional or encyclopedic intent of the article". ¶ Let's look through these, one by one. (1) real world importance minimal (and ditto for most of what I write up) / (2) principal national organization of its type seemingly irrelevant here / (3) highest level award no, nothing like it (and here's where this article differs from those that I perpetrate: "my" biographees usually have some non-trivial awards or something comparable) / (4) market share I'm not qualified to judge; but I suspect it's relatively high. I don't think that anybody has yet argued (in this AfD or its predecessor) that he's much less prominent in his genre than are various other people. / (5) size Seemingly irrelevant here. / (6) historical significance I have no particular reason to think that there'll be any, but this would be true of a number of the people I write up. Anyway, all we can do is guess; we can't yet judge / (7) promotional or encyclopedic intent of the article At times, it has seemed very promotional. But now, thanks to recent good work by Softlavender, E.M.Gregory and Lopifalko, it does not look promotional and indeed looks encyclopedic. (Yes, some of the sources that it cites are dodgy; but FFS the question is of whether the article should exist, not whether it should be "featured".) ¶ Another question might be: If our biographee's encyclopedia-worthiness is (or fails to be) that of a photographer, then how does he score on the conventional criteria for contemporary photographers? These are: noteworthy exhibitions, noteworthy photobooks, and noteworthy prizes. I don't see these. (The fact that his photobooks are self-published and lack ISBNs doesn't worry me. The same can be said for Rob Hornstra's. But Hornstra's get serious discussion/appreciation; Lawless's don't.) But when I look at the amount of coverage he's got, I have to concede that the conventional criteria shouldn't be boneheadedly insisted on. ¶ His work is discussed (if not all that deeply); people might already want to look him up. The article isn't at all bad. If it's later subjected to more boosterism, then this can be dealt with. And therefore keep. -- Hoary (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I want to thank Hoary for his analysis, which does fairly represent the way I think about accepting articles. I might very well agree with his conclusion, if I thought we had any likelihood of success in keeping promotionalism out of articles. We have no good way of enforcing content standards within an article--the only effective quality control point is right here. If having cleaned it, we let it into WP, the subject or his agents will presumably continue to reinsert promotional material. Our best guard against that is not to accept borderline notable articles in fields liable to promotion, so we can at least have so hope of policing the ones that are really important.
But this is a balancing test, and a matter of judgment. Such are the criteria I use, or the criteria I think everybody may individually uses, or the way they individually choose to interpret substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources. This is not a purely objective matter of analysis, and there is no one right decision. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL I was just pinged by sockpuppet User:Jacobssteph with the comment above. I suppose it's his way of letting us all know that wherever the "3 or 4" - by his estimate - sockpuppets who have padded this page with PROMO for years came from, they are still around and proud of their work. I will repeat here my comment on the article's talk page: This discussion and page are so strange that I am actually wondering if Wikipedia is being deliberately played in some bizarre work of performance art.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently that is a common feeling for those involved in this subject matter. See this link.104.163.154.101 (talk) 06:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Babymissfortune 11:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"very serious makeover" = "need to be fundamentally rewritten" which is the criterion for when promotionalism is bad enough for G11 speedy. DGG ( talk ) 15:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It has never been eligible for G11, and over the three-week course of this AfD it has been greatly re-worked and re-written, as noted by Hoary in his !vote above [27]. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think DGG is saying it is eligible for G11, I think he is pointing it would be eligible for G11 if the closing decision was solely based on this particular keep !vote. Apologies, DGG, if I've misinterpreted or mis-ascribed your intent. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
yes, you have it right, but in more detail: in the state it was in on Nov 20,when I listed it for AfD, I think it might have been auitable for G11. But it would not have been right to nominate it for speedy when it had been previous kept at the first AfD. (not actually prohibited, but in my view not a good idea, because someone would probably have removed the speedy deletion tag, and speedy is for use only when everyone who understands WP would agree.) At this point, I don't think it's a G11, but I do think it is promotional enough for deletion in spite of the subsequent improvements, because notability is still borderline as well--I think we should delete in such circumstances. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't eligible for G11 when this AfD was opened [28]. Also, back in 2015 the original AfD nominator (after removing 62% of the article's text and 53% of its citations), tagged it for G11 [29] but it was immediately declined by Cryptic [30]. Your statement that notability is borderline is belied by 176,000 Google web hits (including numerous non-English venues), 1,260 Google News results (including non-English venues), and a substantial mention in an academic journal as exemplifying his field of urban exploration in North America. -- Softlavender (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"substantial mention" is not "substantial coverage", and counting Google and Google news results is the worst way possible to judge notability . You have to look at the small percentage that are actually about him. As for GNews, it's curious how they all read about the same way. The coverage is just what I said at the beginning, advertising for hisself-published books. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He has had substantial coverage in dozens and dozens of reliable sources, including numerous non-English sources, and those dozens and dozens of items in reliable sources that I refer to are indeed about him and his work, not advertising for his books. Softlavender (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it's the notorious IP here. I think this could be closed now, as a) there is a decent consensus with only the nominator and one editor against, b) it has been open for three weeks and c) the discussion is deteriorating rather than getting better.104.163.155.42 (talk) 04:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request to the admin who eventually closes this: Unless you close this as "no consensus", please give your reasoning for closing it the way you do. (After all, this is not a matter of number of votes.) Thank you for your trouble. -- Hoary (talk) 08:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not a good reference for this discussion. The cited article had nine weak references: see the cache in Google. This one has dozens of strong references.104.163.155.42 (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The similarity lies in the problem of keeping articles heavily edited by sockpuppets a problem enanced in these two cases by the fact that much of the publicity is based on claims made by page subject, that cannot be verified, and that, in both cases,may be self-aggrandizing fabulism. We cannot, for example, verify that Lawless' father was an auto-worker, although the claim is a major underpinning element of his notability as a photographer, I mean by that, the press likes the idea of covering a scion of the vanishing working class who takes photos of industrial decline. But the entire bio could be a hoax. Imposters are a problem.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Infamous IP again. Not to put it too finely, and with respect: you're just making shit up as a distraction form the obvious facts. I see also from your recent history at ANI that you have been cautioned not to bludgeon, and specifically at AfD. It would appear you are ignoring that caution. Nothing against you as an editor, but frankly what you are writing above is of no help to the discussion. It's gaslighting, perhaps. 104.163.153.162 (talk) 00:52, 18 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Seph_Lawless_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138351899"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seph Lawless (2nd nomination), released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.