Talk:Kim Weston (photographer)

Center for Photographic Art as a source
Earlier versions of this article (for example this one) had a hagiographic introduction with a reference to this page at the Center for Photographic Art.

Actually the text was exactly the same. It's likely that either the Wikipedia article copied the CPA article or vice versa. Either way would have been plagiarism -- and illegal too, because the CPA did/does not describe itself as copyleft.

As I view it now, the CPA article says "By Logan Norton | January 2nd, 2017|Comments Off". The most obvious interpretation of this late date (though not the only possible one) is that the CPA article is merely a copy of the Wikipedia article (in an earlier and more obviously hagiographic state). If so, then the Wikipedia article was merely citing itself as a reference.

Perhaps User:Kimwestonphotography and/or User:Annabellelinda would care to weigh in here. -- Hoary (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hoary Hello! Thank you so much for your comment. The CfPA recently underwent a website re-design and I believe their web-master failed to include the original authors of the member artists' biographies. Though the author is posted as Logan Norton and dated 2017; however, that biography has been used on the CfPA's website since at least 2012 when Kim Weston exhibited his painted photographs at the center . I will contact the gallery to find out the original author of the write-up and inform them of the mistake with the source date/contributor.


 * Annabellelinda (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)Annabellelinda


 * Thank you. The Wikipedia article should put in quotation marks all material that comes directly from that web page. -- Hoary (talk) 04:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Contested speedy deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... it doesn't quite fall under either of the two categories that the deletion template describes.


 * 1) because in its current form it serves only to promote or publicise an entity, person, product, or idea, and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic. ... Nor does this criterion apply where substantial encyclopedic content would remain after removing the promotional material as deletion is not cleanup; ... -- It doesn't seem only to do this, though of course we can argue over the meaning of the (deliberately?) vague term "substantial".
 * 2) as a copyright infringement(Copyvios report) of http://www.thewestoncollective.org/kim-weston-biography/ (Duplication Detector report · Copyvios report). This criterion applies only in unequivocal cases, where there is no free-content material on the page worth saving and no later edits requiring attribution -- The Wayback Machine doesn't have old copies of this page, and so we can't be sure that the copying didn't go in the opposite direction.

This page could well merit an AfD, however. -- Hoary (talk) 04:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * There are no reliable sources cited other than 2 local newspapers, which does not satisfy Notability (people). A large proportion of the exhibitions are in a town with a population of 3,722. -Lopifalko (talk) 10:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * You would be welcome to send this article to AfD, pointing this out. But the grounds for speedy deletion are a lot more limited than are those for deletion via AfD. -- Hoary (talk) 06:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Annabellelinda has added a lot of refs since I wrote that, so it would first be worth assessing whether those refs are valid. -Lopifalko (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)