Talk:Suzy Gorman

NPOV comment
Just in case anyone is curious, this article is not intended as a hatchet job. The photographer revels in her reputation of being difficult to deal with, and I have run this wording by her -- she has approved the phrasing. The articles that I have quoted as references, confirm the demeanor and the comments. The wording here on Wikipedia is as neutral as I could manage -- if anyone would like to figure out a way to present the demeanor in a more neutral fashion, feel free! --Elonka 00:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Why does this article exist?
I've been an advertising art director for nearly five years, three of those years spent in St. Louis, and I'm hardly familiar with this individual. She doesn't register on the radar screen outside of doing the occasional portrait for local publications. Which means she's like a lot of other photographers, thus not that spectacular. She hardly warrants being on Wikipedia, and even worse, none of her work is dispalyed. Focusing on her "reputation" (which isn't nearly as interesting or visible as this article claims) is pathetic. A photographer is defined by their pictures, not their attitude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradleygutting (talk • contribs) 11:05, November 17, 2006
 * On Wikipedia, notability is sometimes judged not by the quality of someone's photos, but by the amount of press attention that an individual receives. Someone could be a fantastic photographer, but unless they won an award or were written up in the newspaper, that doesn't make them "notable."  As for St. Louis photographers, if you know of others who you believe should have Wikipedia biographies, please by all means bring up their names, or go ahead and create stub articles on them.  As for why Ms. Gorman's work is not displayed, that is probably because there are no "public domain" images of her work.  If you would like to see her images, I am sure there is a link to her website somewhere in the article. --Elonka 08:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletions
I have deleted the sections Disposition and Quotes. The latter remains unsourced after over a year. The former is unsourced and contentious. It may be that a previous editor has discussed this article with the subject but that does not constitute a verifiable source, and cannot help subsequent editors.

A reminder from WP:BLP: "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources [...]" (my emphasis).

I have also removed biographical information about the subject's family. If they are notable, then presumably someone will write articles on them.

Oh, and one of the references has gone 404 and a search of the website doesn't find it. Richard Pinch (talk) 07:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability
At present this article does not overwhelmingly assert notability. Just for reference:


 * Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:


 * * The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
 * * The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
 * * The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
 * * The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.

None of these are apparent. The sources, as far as I can tell, are a few chatty items in local publications, about her, not her work. Richard Pinch (talk) 07:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The community already discussed this article (see Articles for deletion/Suzy Gorman), and the consensus was that she is sufficiently notable for an article. --Elonka 17:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting, thanks. I have to say that there wasn't so much explanation there as bald assertion, though.  Richard Pinch (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources Again
This article has had source problems for a very long time. There are no inline cites, only a reference list, of which many entries are questionable and/or ephemeral, e.g. a piece from a local TV broadcast and obscure magazines. (For example, which is the "Seen" magazine referred to here: this one, this one, this one, this one, this one?? ... well, you get the idea.) Others make only trivial mention. The bottom line is that, without inlines, much of the article is nothing more than original research. I added the generic "original research" tag, which was promptly removed by Elonka. That's unfortunate, because this article needs help. Also, despite the verdict of a very old AfD, I think this article has notability questions, as well. Notability guidelines have become appreciably more strict in the last few years, and given the weak sourcing, it's unclear whether this subject still meets the bar. I've no appetite to get into an edit war, so I'll just leave matters as they stand. Hope this article can be improved. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC).


 * Notability tagged: Roughly 5 years later, the article is still in about the same shape. Sources are just a few local news outlets of a photographer, who is not ipso facto notable and really for which no claim to notability beyond "she has taken pictures of notable people" is given. What is needed here is more substantial documentation that she and/or her work have been noted in more than a local context, IMO. Agricola44 (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC).

Assessment comment
Substituted at 07:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)