Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dane Jensen (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 Delete all, except Russell Klika, for now. A strong argument with new sources has been put together here by User:AuthorAuthor to give the Klika article a chance to breathe. The rest are being deleted per consensus as non-notable vanity pieces being used to promote a non-notable exhibit. No prejudice against a renomination of the Klika article if it is not sourced properly/improved. I feel enough of a notability argument has been established for now for Klika that his BIO warrants its own discussion instead of being included in a bundled AfD. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dane Jensen

This article was created as promotion by SPA who created an article on an upcoming photographic exhibition called

WP:CSD#G11

.

None of these articles can stand on their own notability. The photographers have received decorations, but we don't have articles on each serviceman or servicewoman who is awarded the

Joint Services Commendation Medal or the Combat Action Ribbon. Further, photographers with photos published in USA Today or Newsweek

are not automatically notable because of publication in a newspaper or magazine. The articles say "featured in (publication)", which gives the impression of... well, a feature, on their work. No evidence of features is shown, only a photo credit or two in those publications.

If this isn't the definition of promotion or advertising, I don't know what is. The articles are here only to promote this person and the exhibition. Unless evidence of notability can be found elsewhere, all should be deleted. KrakatoaKatie 00:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated for deletion are:

WP:CSD#G12

, then recreated by a different editor in the same format. See note/question below re: Russell Klika possible deletion

WP:CSD#G12

Finally, the first Dane Jensen AFD was for a different Dane Jensen, not related to this person. KrakatoaKatie 01:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question: I created the new page for Russell Klika and did not use an old format. I tried to include the facts of his career. I know of his photos as a combat photographer. I wasn't aware there was an issue with the Eye of the Storm gallery show, otherwise I wouldn't have included that part. It can be removed from the article. I guess I don't understand the reasoning for deleting a page about a well-known, notable combat photographer? Thank you. AuthorAuthor (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are there separate pages for each of the AfDs for the articles listed above? For some reason, each of the links in the individual articles seem to link back to this page. TheMindsEye (talk) 03:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not uncommon for similarly situated articles to be placed in a group nomination. That seems to be the case here. --Maxa megalon 2000 05:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 07:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC) —David Eppstein (talk) 07:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jeremy Lock: [1]. Delete the rest as non-notable.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on the article, Jensen does not meet the Notability standard for Creative Professionals. Handling the work of significant artists does not, in itself, merit notability. The article does not demonstrate esteem by peers, or that his work is a significant monument. Perhaps his work on Eye of the Storm will make his reputation, but the article does not show that this reputation is already established. TheMindsEye (talk) 04:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced and added notation on Klika page that he is a 1988 alumnus (and the first military photographer selected to attend) of the Eddie Adams workshop, which is considered a prestigious workshop for top photographers early in their careers.AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, Dane Jensen as lacking sufficient notability for an article, and the others as non-notable military combat photographers. Note that Dane Jensen has previously been deleted via an AFD, and if this is the same material and the same Dane Jensen, speedy delete and salt as re-creation of a previously deleted article. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the lot, for the reasons given above. As for Ethicoaestheticist's defense of Jeremy Lock, Ethicoaestheticist gives a pertinent link, but my interest quickly wanes when I read within it: The Department of Defense Visual Information Awards Program annually picks a Military Photographer of the Year, Videographer of the Year, and Graphic Artist of the Year in a competition held at the Defense Information School at Fort Meade, MD -- so it's not as if Lock has won some notable photographic or journalistic award; instead, his school says he's top of the class. I wish him and the others well; some day they may merit articles, but not yet. -- Hoary (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reconsider deleting Russell Klika; he has won dozens of notable journalism awards, including from the Society of Professional Journalists. I'll get the citations and post them.AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I hadn't realized that there were that many notable journalism awards to be won. Don't worry about dozens, plural, or even a single dozen. Can you (or somebody) name and provide evidence for just half a dozen? Or anything similar? He does seem to have had one exhibition in a university. (Not a university I'd ever heard of, but that's probably my fault.) Any other solo exhibitions? Any substantial publications (e.g. books)? Any critical commentary? Until I see signs of this, I think Klika's article should go along with the others. Of course he may later fulfill his promise, whereupon he'd be welcome to an article: deletion now doesn't mean autodeletion of a more substantive article later. -- Hoary (talk) 05:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He had a one-man show at Point Park University, according to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Here's a link to the article about it: http://pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/living/events/s_551089.html Here's an article about his show and lecture at Slippery Rock University in the school's newspaper: http://media.www.theonlinerocket.com/media/storage/paper601/news/2008/02/08/News/War-Pictures.Captured.By.Visual.Artist-3196703.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by AuthorAuthor (talk • contribs) 07:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's something there, but it's very thin. The fact that the photos move within Point Park University (from hall to library) suggests to me that it was a small and minor show. Was there no other press coverage of either of these? How about some photo stories (and not just separate photos) by Klika? Inclusion in the permanent collection of some gallery or other? Some of those notable journalism awards? -- Hoary (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - In 1992, he won Best of Show out of more than a thousand submissions from the San Diego Press Club's annual journalism contest. I'll get the documentation (need to pull it from Lexis-Nexis). He was chosen to be included in the Art of Photography Show in San Diego: http://www.artofphotographyshow.com/credits.html

http://jpgmag.com/blog/2008/03/art_of_photography_contest_res_1.html Also, his photos are on display in JPG magazine. He was a combat photojournalist (not just a photographer) in Iraq, writing articles and taking photos. I can post links of some of those articles on the Russell Klika page.AuthorAuthor (talk) 10:08, 14 May 2008 (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.