Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Thompson (photographer)

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. Basically, nobody challenged the additional sources presented by ThatMontrealIP. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Thompson (photographer) (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)

Doubtful GNG, appears to be publicity-focused, and no secondary sources. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 05:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Might scrape under the bar of WP:ARTIST given there are plenty of independent reliable sources out there. However I would expect it to be WP:NOTYET because the awards are not notable, only one self-published book, and 4 solo exhibitions (1 of which at a notable venue, Royal Palace of Caserta, but what kind of exhibition I do not know). -Lopifalko (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep I added three sources: Daily Beast, Petpixel and an Italian Newspaper blog. He is mentioned a lot on the web, usually in independent magazines. The three sources added make for weak GNG. You do not need awards, museum collections or a book by Phaidon to meet GNG, although those are of course good! ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Not even the self-published book now after ThatMontrealIP removed it. As far as I know PetaPixel is not a WP:RELIABLE source, and not a notable source for what it cites: "Thompson has received attention for his artistic interpretation of the selfie" and neither is the other source cited for that claim, Fstoppers. -Lopifalko (talk) 08:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The selfie attention is a very reasonable and mild claim, which I sourced. I'm not trying to puff this guy up, I am just stating what I found in searches. I removed the self-pub book as it did not make sense to have a section devoted to a book sold through the subject's web site, sourced by the same site. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP, if you mean you added the PetaPixel and Fstoppers sources to show attention from those web sites then that attention is not notable. If you added those sources because they talk about attention given him from elsewhere then they are again inappropriate: the PetaPixel article mentions only coverage by The Daily Beast and upvotes on comments on Reddit, and the Fstoppers article does not mention attention he has received from elsewhere. Regarding the book, it makes perfect sense to have a section for publications that lists a self-published work. Self-published works are respectable. -Lopifalko (talk) 10:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a volunteer here and not interested in tedious back and forth arguments. There's a ton of coverage for this, including Rangefinderonline.com. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also not interested in arguing for the sake of it, I only seek to help enlighten. Again, Rangefinder is not a notable publication — we have no article on it. -Lopifalko (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm already highly enlightened and cognitively aware, but thanks. As to the sources, you have disqualified three independent, in-depth sources so far. Please point out the WP policy that says an RS has to also have an article on it. If that is the case we will need to remove the millons of sources in use on Wikipedia from publications that do not have their own WP page.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By "I only seek to help enlighten", I meant that I wasn't arguing for the sake of it, I was hoping to shed worthwhile light. I'm sorry if my wording offended. The last thing I want to be is obstructive here, I genuinely thought I was shining worthwhile light on the understanding of the subject.

I specifically said Rangefinder was not a notable source rather than not a reliable source, so as not to confuse the two concepts; where as I said I did not consider PetaPixel to be either notable or reliable. I've written 80 article on photographers and 99% of the time I have not cited sources such as PetaPixel and Fstoppers because I didn't consider them reliable. I don't even read such sources when researching a person, keeping instead solely to broadsheet newspapers and much more established print and web magazines, so as not to take in facts that I wouldn't be able to source. Likewise I would never draw attention to coverage by such sources as being coverage worth noting, because I do not consider them notable. I have taken note of what has been said here and stand corrected, this will make my life easier in sourcing in future.

I do understand that not having an article on a publication or web site does not infer unreliability, but what I meant is that the lack of an article for me lends weight to the idea that it is not reliable. I do know that reliability is about context. I have used this yardstick a lot in my own editing but I now see that it is not something that stands up to argument. -Lopifalko (talk) 08:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget the larger picture. See the very good sources below.13:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• Weak Delete There are enough sources, but they are quite not mainstream. He does not pass WP:ARTIST yes, which I assume a case of WP:TOOEARLY and quite does not pass WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment We have a failure of WP:BEFORE here. I am pretty sure, for example, that Esquire is a good source. Additional fabulous RS and in-depth sources, tracked down form looking at the artist's web site:

• Yahoo News: "Surrealist Photographer Takes Out of This World Self-Portraits" (2012)
• Huffington Post: "His photos May just change your life" (2013)
• The Daily Star (DHaka, Bangladesh): "The entrancing self-portraiture of Kyle Thompson" (2014)
• Harper's Bazaar, Spain:"El surrealismo mágico de Kyle J. Thompson" (2015)
• Portland Mercury: "Breathing Life into Disaster Porn: Kyle Thompson's Ghost Town" (2015)
• L'intelletuale Dissidente, "Kyle Thompson, Dove Nessuno Oserebbe Andare", (2017)
• Esquire (Italy): "Kyle Thompson Porta le Sue Foto Surreali Alla Reggia di Caserta", (2018)
• there are more listed on his CV, but I will stop there. Clearly meets GNG, and the nomination lacked WP:BEFORE due diligence. Pinging ArtHistorian.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There's enough about him. ¶ The disagreement above over the Petapixel article, or Petapixel as a whole, puzzled me, so I went looking for it. It seems a decent little article, not the best source for any major claim about Thompson, but OK for its purpose. ¶ Websites that have en:WP articles about them are on average more noteworthy than those that do not, but this is merely a generalization and has many exceptions. The lack of an article here about Petapixel indicates a failing of en:WP, not of Petapixel; yes, some of the content of Petapixel is fluff, but consider this article of theirs on one aspect of the racket of photo contests and this article on Martin Stavars aka Marcin Stawiarz, the person heading a number of these contests: this is investigative, valuable journalism. -- Hoary (talk) 02:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As per the many sources found by ThatMontrealIP. -Lopifalko (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2018 (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.