Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Kobeck


 * 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 - It is pretty obvious there is some meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry going on here. After giving each comment the proper weight, a clear consensus of delete appears. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  15:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

John Kobeck

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I can't see that this meets WP:ARTIST and I can't find supporting sources in a search. Most of it is copied from the author's own site johnkobeck.com. heather walls (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The article is not new and has been established on Wikipedia for some time. I did a google search and find numerous supporting data regarding the references. I have also verified the artists work as being listed in the permanent collections at Benedictine University in Chicago as well as The Center for Fine Art Photography in Colorado. These are highly respected institutions. I did also find auction results from Susanins in Chicago. Interestingly, when I google "contemporary fine art photography" much of the artists work dominates page one in the google image database. This kind of nit-picking is exactly what we no not need on Wikipedia. While its true there are many articles that are simply self promotion, this is clearly not one of them and should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okjaekim (talk • contribs) 20:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Hi Okjaekim. Unfortunately for keeping's sake, the age of an article is not relevant. I don't know what you mean by supporting data regarding references because references should be the supporting data, and the article is currently missing reliable secondary sources. If you have a reference that shows Kobeck's work being in the permanent collections, please add it to the article and it may make all the difference. The fact that this is the only article you have worked on weakens your argument about promotion. If you have the proper sources, ending this deletion will only require adding them to the article. Thank you, heather walls (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. You created the article, Okjaekim. When you added all that material, I hope that you were doing so from disinterested sources. You're right in saying that the article does not look like a simple case of self-promotion. However, the claims that it makes should be sourced all the same. As an illustration (I hope!), here's the article on a photographer that I've most recently created: it's bristling with specific sources (humdrum, but not the photographer's own site); looking for these and adding them was a pain (or a seemingly interminable series of pains), but a Wikipedia contributor has gotta do what they've gotta do. -- Hoary (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

You both make valid points. I will amend the article to include at a minimum evidence of the permanent collections. I may have to contact the institutions referenced for the direct links. I have seen them before and I know they do exist. Please allow me some time to do this. Regarding this being my only submission, I apologize. However my schedule does no permit me enough time. FYI I am currently creating a Wikki article for a scholar at SCAD (Savannah college of Art and Design) and this is taking up much of my time right now and much of his work was done prior to the internet so there are even less sources online. I have no personal interests in either of these people; but I am passionate about contemporary photography. I will however work on the sources for Kobeck this week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okjaekim (talk • contribs) 17:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Just so you know, references don't need to be online :) heather walls (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I have reached out to the The Center For Fine Art Photography in Boulder Co and spoke with the director; Ms Hamidah Glasgow. She informed me that they do not publish an online list of the Permanent Collection archives. However she did confirm his work as being included. I asked her if it were possible to send a letter via email for the artist to scan and upload. I have not heard back from her as of yet. I am hopeful that this will satisfy you regarding the validity of John Kobeck's work and career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okjaekim (talk • contribs) 19:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: I have included the proper evidence of Kobeck's work in the inclusion of the Permanent Collection of Benedictine University in the references here.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. Talk of correspondence with a gallery is starting to sound a bit desperate. The obvious next stage is simply to delete mention of the Center for Fine Art Photography and to provide sources for a lot of the other claims. There are all those exhibitions: what about the sources for these? (And were they solo or group?) True, there is a set of "references" at the foot of the article: which of these references is for what? (Just use to create a reference where it applies, and where you want the lot of them dumped. There's "Help:Referencing for beginners", or you can simply examine how it's done in some other article.) And the lead: Much of Kobeck's work is conceptual in nature, dealing with the human elements of isolation, depression, loneliness, death, mortality, sexuality and religion. Major influences include Duane Michals, Robert Mapplethorpe, Larry Sultan, Man Ray. Nature aside, I don't understand "conceptual"; in practice it often means "of no interest to most people until they have seen the accompanying 'artist's statement', which, if successful, will make viewers think that they ought somehow to find it of interest"; does it mean more than this here, and if so, what; either way, what's the source for this characterization? Does Kobeck say that Michals et al have influenced him, or has somebody else said this; either way, where's the source? -- Hoary (talk) 00:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * My work on this page is now complete. I have deleted the exhibitions where I could not find references (mostly South and Central America) which is probably the reason. Regarding " conceptual art;"  I am not going to get into a discussion on what is and is not conceptual art. His work clearly is and he refers to himself as a conceptual artist on his blog in the past.  He has also made mention of his influences on blog posts etc. Lets not nit pick this to death.  I feel satisfied with the end result, although I do regret having to delete the Permanent Collection reference for the Center for Fine Art Photography simply because they refuse to publish it online.  I must thank the person who pointed out the ref html tags etc. I was obviously doing it incorrectly and the formatting was wrong. I trust this will satisfy everyone .... added in this pair of edits by Okjaekim (contributions) on 29 May 2014
 * A reference normally comes after the assertion for which it's the reference. That error is easy to fix; but that aside, this article is dubious. (If your work on this page really is complete, I'm very disappointed.) I notice for example this pair of bare URLs in references: https://www.c4fap.org/exhibitions/home/ and http://raykophotocenter.com/2012/2013/2/2/voyeurism-intimacy-the-publicprivate-divide-in-photography . The former doesn't mention Kobeck (perhaps some other page in that website does). In the second, Kobeck is one of over thirty exhibitors. Ideally, there'd be critical commentary about his work, or awards for it, or something. Short of that, has he had any solo exhibitions (or shares in exhibitions by just two or three people)? Has he put out a photobook? Yes, feel very free to ignore my own jaded view of the "conceptual"; if his work is clearly conceptual (or indeed if it were instead clearly pictorialist or humanist or anything else), then where is the newspaper review (or whatever) that says this? -- Hoary (talk) 05:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Keep The former url does mention Kobeck. It is a list of photographers in the "home" exhibition at the Center for Fine Art Photography. As you scroll through the photographs Kobeck's piece comes up. The second one is the Rayko Photo Gallery which is the gallery that hosted the Society for Photographic Education's event, and Kobeck is listed as one of the artist on the first page. Todd Hido (one of Kobeck's influences) juried that event and Kobeck was given an honorable mention. You clearly have made up your mind and refuse to change your stance, even though the article has been substantially cleaned up. Perhaps you simply do not care for the artists work (the sexual nature of some of the projects) ? But at this point, there is no valid reason why this article should be deleted. I have really said all I can here. .... added in this series of edits by Okjaekim (contributions) on 29 May 2014
 * Perhaps you are addressing me, Okjaekim. If so: I have no opinion of Kobeck's work. (I haven't seen it.) That I wasn't interested in the work of Kevin Ou or Henrik Purienne didn't hinder me from saying "Keep" to either article. The "Home" exhibition: I use the browser to search for the string "Kobeck", and it finds nothing. The Rayko one: OK, so Kobeck was one of 30+ people whose work was praised by Hido on that one occasion. Any solo exhibition by Kobeck? Any commentary by Hido on Kobeck? -- Hoary (talk) 08:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hoary yes I was addressing you in particular since you really seem to have issue with this artist. Are you a frustrated photographer or artist? Regarding the "Home: exhibition that you claim you couldn't find online; if you Google this HERE just scroll down to the 2nd and 3rd listing in that google search. Are you questioning the validity of  The Center For Fine Art Photography? If you are, then perhaps you are not as knowledgable as you claim to be about fine art photography. Furthermore, if you go HERE and scroll to page 3 in the gallery the final 2 images are Kobeck's Yes you will have to actually click onto the image to see the artists name.  It was one of those images that was added to the permanent collection ( I believe it was the one of the black man) The Center for Fine Art Photography is highly credible and trustworthy in and outside of academia. Kobeck's work was also exhibited (twice) at the Griffin Museum of Photography in Winchester MA. Regarding your remark about Todd Hido; yes he nominated Kobeck's work in the Society for Photographic Educations show as noteworthy by giving it his "Honorable Mention" nomination. This means he felt it stood out amoung the other 30 pieces. That show was also curated by Hido. I believe that speaks for itself. Perhaps you should email Hido and ask him about it? Okay, I know I have said this before, but now I am officially down with this ridiculous discussion as I have to be in Tokyo tomorrow for an event. .... added in this pair of edits by Okjaekim (contributions) on 29 May 2014


 * Oh yes, my questions about Kobeck must surely be symptomatic of psychological problems. Those aside, welcome to Tokyo! Highly recommended right now: the Kikai show at Canon, and (despite the inconvenience of location) the Kuwabara show at Setagaya Art Museum. -- Hoary (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Delete. All of his achievements so far centre around exhibitions, which is not an achievement that demonstrates enough notability for Wikipedia. There is not one mention of him by any reliable source other than the places where his work has been exhibited or sold, no reliable disinterested sources talking *about* him. The only printed publication including him, that by APW Gallery, is one that would not normally merit inclusion in Wikipedia, as Kobeck's inclusion is so watered down by the fact the publication is a collection of work by 95 different contributors, only sold at the gallery and on their website, of which there is almost no mention on the web. The referenced article only for this publication claims it will be made, not that it was actually made, too. Is this group of contributors drawn from the same 106 people who were featured, as was Kobeck, in APW Gallery's 'Small Works BIG Idea' exhibition? It looks like a vanity publication, basically only mentioned on the web by the gallery themselves, and the included artists adding it to their CV. -Lopifalko (talk)

Comment. I have now updated the page to show proper evidence of the permanent collections, namely The Center for Fine Art Photography and Benedictine University. Please see the updates. Those are two reliable and verifiable sources, and meet the criteria for artists inclusion in the Wikipedia. .... added in this pair of edits by Okjaekim on 1 June 2014

Keep. The current version of the article does meet the guideline for inclusion. Namely, the artist is included in a major university’s permanent collection (Benedictine University) as well as the permanent collection of the Center For Fine Art Photography in Boulder, Colorado. The artist has also exhibited twice at the Griffin Museum of Photography, which is well-regarded. The Society for Photographic Education’s member show with honorable mention by Todd Hido is also nothing to take lightly. Kobeck's work displays human isolation in a way no other artist has done before, as even a cursory glance at his body of work will prove. I see no valid reason why this article should be deleted (now that the sources and references have been cleaned up from the prior version. I vote to keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishey (talk • contribs) 19:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)  — Rishey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment A WP:Single-purpose account to vote on an obscure AfD is at best suspect, Rishey. heather walls (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Heather this is my first post here on Wikipedia so I don't know the lingo.Regardless, it is notable that you have no disagreement to my 'Keep" comment, but rather only disagree with my authenticity as a unique human being. --Rishey Rishey (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I still don't believe that this article proves notability, (being in a collection because one donated their own work should only be an added case, not the main argument,) at the same time as I am curious of your arrival to comment here. heather walls (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. Heather, I have been a fan of Kobeck's work for a number of years and recently he tweeted a link to this entry. A few days later I noticed that it was flagged for deletion (my terminology may be wrong here). However, along the same lines, I am very curious as to why you were suddenly interested in deleting Kobeck's article only days after he tweeted a link to it. Your undermining the credibility of the detractors to your opinion make me seriously question your motives.  Rishey (talk) 22:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)Rishey


 * Hi Rishey, sorry I didn't notice your comment before. Actually I probably reviewed this page back when it was first created. After some new edits brought this article to the attention of my watch list again, I though I would see how it was doing. It did not appear to have grown to establish notability so I started the RfD to either stir up attention for improvements, or let the article go if there was nothing substantial to make supporting references. I am not trying to undermine anyone (who also happens to be a unique participant), just review the quality of this article. heather walls (talk) 07:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment What an interesting discussion thats going on here! I had to jump back in. Heather Walls; let me educate you regarding the way Permanent Collections work, as I am in academia myself. I know you work in social media and marketing so perhaps you aren't aware of the process. For an artist to be included in the Permanent Collection of a museum, university or public institution, that artist is asked to donate the work that is sought to be included. Most often, the work that is requested to be donated was in a recent exhibition at said institution (which is exactly the case with eh "home" show at the Center for Fine Art Photography. In return, the artist will receive a letter of written confirmation (as is the case here in the links). The purpose of the letter is for a tax deduction. Of course the artist doesn't approach a museum or university and simply donate the work. Permanent collections are complied by curators and boards, never solicited by artist. If that were the case, every struggling artist would be donating work. I hope this clears up the confusion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okjaekim (talk • contribs) 22:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Okjaekim, I suspect that this won't be the last time you'll feel compelled to "jump back in". On any future occasion, please finish your contribution with four consecutive jabs at the twiddle ("tilde") key ("~") . This adds your name and the time. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 23:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Definitely better than jabs at your fellow editors. Assumption and condescension are rarely appreciated. heather walls (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Hoary, thanks again for the tip. Im not of the computer generation and this whole internet thing is really new to me. Heather, I meant no disrespect to you. I was simply pointing out the process of Permanent Collections. Unless the artist is in the league of a Warhol, its always donated (at the request of the institution). I have certainly learned a lot about Wikki over the last few days. In the end, I do hope Kobeck's page remains, he is well known and respected among contemporary fine art photography. I feel guilty about this; because I fear it was my poor editing and use of proper citations that brought this on in the first place. cheers Okjaekim (talk) 23:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)



Delete. For the same reasons as have already been mentioned, this article does not meet notability guidelines. I'm not sure that even being in the permanent collections of Benedictine University and the Center For Fine Art Photography in Boulder, Colorado, would suffice. The guidelines state "[the subject] is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.Paisarepa (talk) 06:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

" The guidelines state "[the subject] is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums" In my understanding, several means more then one. Let me just point out something critical here: The original article, as flagged by Heather Wells, is substantially different then this article as it is today! Namely. hardly any of the sources had proper citations (my fault admittedly). Both Benedictine University as well as The Center for Fine Art Photography did not have proper citations. So when Paisarepa says "For the same reasons as have already been mentioned, this article does not meet notability guidelines" He is referring to reasons that were mentioned in comments above, prior to the major revisions that were added. The article in its current state is substantially improved over its former version which was flagged for deletion and discussed above.Okjaekim (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not for you to say what Paisarepa has done in coming to their decision. As Wikipedia editors we should assume good faith and assume that Paisarepa has based their decision on reading the article as it stands. My assumption is that they did that, and still found it lacking notability, for the same reason that other commentators have found, because the achievements do not amount to notability in the eyes of Wikipedia, whether referenced or not. -Lopifalko (talk)

Comment No to the contrary, I am simply quoting Wikki's guidelines. regarding the an artist being included in several permanent collections as that is what was mentioned in the above comment. Several means "more then one" and I was pointing this out. Paisarepa quoted the guidelines and then went on to say Kobeck being in those two collections don't meet the guidelines of "several" which seemed like a contradiction. This entire discussion is becoming a witch hunt and that is what saddens me. In the end, its not the artist who will be damaged, but its the credibility of the Wikipedia. Okjaekim (talk) 12:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Okjaekim. First off, I judged the page based off of the information on it when I accessed it, shortly before I posted my opinion here. When I said that I agree for the same reasons posted above, I should have been more specific. It is my opinion that the page should be deleted because the artist does not meet WP:ARTIST notability guidelines, and I was unable to find anything additional that would suggest that he does meet the guidelines. Second, it is my understanding that the word "several" means "more than two, or three, but not very many" (see:https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/several). I realize that words can have many different meanings or broad meanings, and that the meaning can vary over time and over geographical distances, so I apologize for any misunderstanding. However, I stand by my opinion that the page should be deleted, per WP:ARTIST and WP:TOOSOON. I think it is possible that this artist will be notable enough for a page in the future, but not yet. Paisarepa (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. The "improvements" to the article since Afd listing highlight the lack of significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep As per wikipedia guidelines; the photographer is included in the permanent collections of two credible institutions, one of them being a university. Both institutions have wikipedia pages. To dismiss this as insignificant to say same for both institutions (Center for Fine Art Photography and Benedictine University). I also see two photographs in the auction database at Susanins in chicago (a major fine art auction house). In the references there are also two exhibitions at the Griffin Museum in Boston. TxFineArt (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC) TxFineArt (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC) — TxFineArt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep The achievements of the artist are substantial enough to merit the current page. I'm not going to repeat the obvious as it was all covered above. There are plenty of articles on Wiki that should be deleted, this is not one of them. And I do agree with the poster above, this is starting to look like a witch hunt! Docman67 (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC) — Docman67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment. Above, I was asked: Perhaps you simply do not care for the artists work (the sexual nature of some of the projects) ? I later looked at Kobeck's website. I don't claim to have looked closely at everything there, but my impression is that the reference here can only be to the series "Destitute" (which I should point out is "NSFW"). Could it be that this is in a sense "outsider art" whose subject matter makes it unpalatable not only to my staid self but also to arbiters of taste and whose notability therefore should not be judged by the usual criteria? Well, the subject matter strikes me as resembling that of Scot Sothern's Lowlife and Tony Fouhse's User. Both of the latter series (particularly Sothern's) have been recognized and discussed. I've no reason to think that the subject matter is a hurdle -- and anyway, this is only a minority of Kobeck's work (as represented on his website). -- Hoary (talk) 09:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment Hoary you said: "I've no reason to think that the subject matter is a hurdle -- and anyway, this is only a minority of Kobeck's work (as represented on his website" however this is not true. I was looking at his website a few minutes ago and the gallery titled "Push to Eject" seems to include photos of S&M, homosexual porn imagery, etc. His blog page which is linked on his website also seems to be a little "out there" for lack of a better word. He also has a large following on social media with plenty of rants about liberal politics, homosexuality, religion etc. I support free speech, even if I don't agree with whats being said. However, its not out of the realm that a outspoken and high profile (on social media) artist would offend someone. Okjaekim (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete per Lopifalko. Biographies require at least a few reliable sources, and especially non-trivial secondary sources, to meet WP:BIO. The presence of so many SPAs suggests that some serious meatpuppetry is afoot.- MrX 15:55, 11 June 2014 (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.