Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beth Green (photographer) (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. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 17:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Beth Green (photographer)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Sources exist that support the subject of the article being a professional photographer and teacher, but does not meet WP:CREATIVE standards for notability. Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Previous AFD ended in speedy delete, but that was for copyvio issues, otherwise I'd say speedy this one too. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Question/comment. The article suggests that she made some news herself while working for UPI back when UPI was an agency of some importance. But the only source given for this is an XML file that my browser can't digest. Can anyone else view (hear?) this thing; and if so, is it credible? Any other sources for the story? In the meantime, I'm not particularly keen to have this article deleted: aside from calling the biographee by her first name (easily fixed), it seems unobjectionable, making minor assertions in a straightforward (non-promotional) way. -- Hoary (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Response to previous Question/comment: I believe the subject, Beth Green, to be notable in regards to her achieving the right to be admitted (and thus, the first female photographer/photojourmnalist) into a sports venue's locker room. This fact is substantiated at NYIP's podcast site (as referenced), hopefully without exceeding the neutrality guidelines by stating this fact, which has also had a positive influence for other women photographers and journalist in this field.  I would think that this is somewhat notable, without being overly presumptuous.  As for listing her name as "Beth S. Green", that was done to differentiate her listing from that of the television actress, "Beth Green".  I have also deleted any references to the publications she has worked for, or had photos published since those citations do not exist in a web-based article.  Please let me know if these edits, that were made today, have corrected the flagged issues from the previous submission.  Thank you. Drmidi2010 (talk) 05:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no requirement that sourcing must be to something available online. An article can be sourced to articles in newspapers and so forth. (Of course sourcing to credible websites is particularly convincing.) &para; Perhaps I phrased myself badly: I hadn't in mind any distinction between "Beth" and "Beth S."; rather, the way in which she was referred to as Beth rather than Green (or Shapiro, which I wildly and perhaps wrongly guess is her maiden name). Consider Zelda Sayre Fitzgerald (sorry to bring up a mere celeb here, but her article is well developed). As a child (or in contradistinction to her husband) she can be referred to as Zelda; as an adolescent or unmarried woman, as Sayre; as a married woman, as Fitzgerald. I may misunderstand this person's surname(s), but anyway she should not normally be referred to simply by her personal name. (Then again this is not a matter of tremendous importance.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Reply to Hoary: 1) I now see that this has been added to the list concerning this post: "Very few or no other articles link to it. Please help introduce links to this page from other articles related to it. Tagged since January 2011." - I believe that it would be quite viable for internal (or wiki-links) from the NYIP (New York Institute of Photography) pages to Beth Green's page would be easily added, once a determination has been made to keep her "bio" page from deletion. There were also many more links in the original post that were removed by another editor.  Perhaps these were either considered to be redundant, or removed for some other various reason.  Again, I have removed any link or reference where the citation was questionable as to being supporting or a verifiable link to the associated component/subject.


 * 2) "Beth Green" (actress from the TV series, "The Bill" does in fact have a page at wiki, thus listing Beth Shaprio Green as "Beth S. Green" would help to distinct these two individuals from each other, again, if the latter subject's page is to be kept from deletion.


 * 3) There are certainly many sources that exist attesting to Beth Green's work at the New York Times, The Washington Post, The Daily News, USA Today, and Newsweek Magazine. However, I removed these statements from the post since I do not have them within my posession, at this particular time.  I also did not think that pdf files scanned from the actual printed articles about Beth Green would be acceptable and/or compliant to wiki's standards for such bio submissions, since they would not represent a completely "neutral point of view."


 * Let it suffice to say that I will do and provide whatever is needed to see this through, if you can specify all that is needed at this point of time in the editing process. If nothing is needed from me at this time, then I will be most patient and await the final decision.  Hopefully, a "thumbs up" will be in sight on the horizon for Beth S. Green. - Drmidi2010 (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

We seem to be at cross purposes here. First, what name does she normally use? If it's "Beth Green", then there's no need to rename the article. The only thing I've wanted to say about her name is the very minor one that it's generally not good to refer to her (as an adult) within the article simply as "Beth". ("Green", OK; "Beth Green", OK; "Beth", not OK. Compare Marilyn Monroe. Her besotted fans may call her "Marilyn"; Wikipedia calls her "Monroe".)

Secondly, if there's material about her in (say) Newsweek, then it can certainly be cited, even if it doesn't appear anywhere on the web.

My guess is that if you can dig up at least one other reliable source for the locker-room business, and also find some other discussion of her or her work, the article will be in the clear. However, I don't claim to be able to read the minds of other people hereabouts. -- Hoary (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

No, we are not "at cross purposes here." I agree that she should be called either "Beth Green" or "Green" within the body of the article. However, what I was referring to was the fact that the original page was titled "Beth S. Green", which was then redirected to a new name, "Beth Green (photographer)", whereas, the other Beth Green at wiki does not make the same sort of distinction by naming her page "Beth Green (actress)". Fact is, Beth Green often uses her middle initial since there are actually several Beth Green(s) out there, (it is a rather common name).

As for external publications regarding Beth Green's past experience and credentials, I am aware of several reprints from Photo District News (www.pdnonline.com), Article: "Beth Green Brings Glamour To The Boardroom" by Lorraine Gracey, (which refers to her past experience with corporate portrait photography, portraits of corporate executive women (and men, too), and there's a direct quote in there about her position as a photo editor for the business section of Newsweek, opening her own studio, and other experience that I had originally posted in my first draft. I have no date for this article, however, I do have the actual reprint of it and can submit that in pdf format if need be.  I also have another reprint from Photo Pro magazine, the article is named, "Beth green's Success With Executive Portraits, Making The Best Look Better" by Lisa Berkley, that discusses Beth Green's executive portrait experience, and also mentions her positions with Newsweek, her assistance with Minor White, her position as a stringer for UPI in Philadelphia, etc., and that, too, I have as a reprint and as a pdf file. Again, for both of these articles, there are no dates on them, though I suspect these dates could be tracked down, if need be. If I were to present these as citations, would it be of help for keeping the page from being deleted? - Drmidi2010 (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, I would like to bring your attention to two paragraphs written by the NYIP on their "Meet Your Instructor" flyer for Beth Green:

"Beth Green is one of the most well-rounded members of the NYI faculty. She runs a photography studio, Beth Green Studios, working with clients in the areas of real estate/architecture, lifestyle/public relations, and corporate.  Over the years, Beth Has taken portraits of most of the prominent New York City CEOs."

"Before opening her studio, Beth was considered one of America's most respected photojournalists. She was employed by the wire services, producing work for the front pages of The New York Times, New York Daily News, Washington Post, and People Magazine.  As a wire service photographer, she went on the campaign trail during two presidential campaigns, and photographed the Queen of England and the Pope.  She also made history -- and the pages of trivia books -- as the first woman photographer permitted to take photographs in a men's locker room after a professional sporting event.  In 1978, Beth left the beat and joined Newsweek as a Photo Editor.  In this role, she both took photographs and managed the magazine's Business section and Fashions & Leisure sections.  She also edited the magazine's annual "Best Pictures of the Year," and collaborated on over 100 covers."

I also have that as a reprint from The NYIP. - Drmidi2010 (talk) 05:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, you may wish to improve the article with your new materials and see what people then think. -- Hoary (talk) 06:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I certainly will do that this evening, though when I re-insert this reference, it will look very similar to what was originally posted, though now I have several citations to support it. (Tuesday, January 25, 2011) - Drmidi2010 (talk) 08:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As the editor who took the brushcutter to this article in the beginning, I respectfully ask that you do NOT make it look similar to what was originally posted. Never mind the lack of references -- your original posting was fluffy and promotional almost to the point of advertising. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Simon: I have only added three references that support a citation for the Charles Rangel photo, and two articles (PhotoPro and Photo District News) that support her experience in the corporate portrait arena. It is certainly not my intention to add back that which has been deleted twice for this insertion.  I have merely added some references to outside sources at the bequest of editor Hoary to "improve the article"; and certainly not to "fluff" the article.  And these were also two address the second notice on the article: "Very few or no other articles link to it. Please help introduce links to this page from other articles related to it. Tagged since January 2011." Drmidi2010 (talk) 07:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In sumation to the submission, we have done everything to address these issues and are now awaiting a decision and/or remaining comments concerning this article. I am hopeful that I have demonstrated notability of the subject, support of statements with citations and references, and have stated that my purpose in posting this bio is not a COI issue (from my perspective).  Therefore, I will not add or make any other changes, unless directed to do so by the adjudicating powers that be. Drmidi2010 (talk) 07:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Sticking my neck out a little here, but assuming good faith on the offline and subscription-only sources, this would appear to meet WP:GNG by a small margin. It doesn't appear to be causing any harm, so there's no particular reason to invoke the stricter parts of WP:BLP. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Alzarian16. I am hopeful that the others involved with this dicussion will also agree with your point of view.  I would like to add that the submission of this topic (made last year) was done by someone else, perhaps without the benefit of understanding some of these guidelines.  However, as to this submission, it is my intention to conform to meet these standards and with good faith in presenting it "matter of fact" and with a "neutral point of view."  I believe Green's notability in the field is deserving of such a page at wiki. Drmidi2010 (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.