Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert McFarlane (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. (non-admin closure) v/r - TP 15:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Robert McFarlane (photographer)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

fails WP:CREATIVE. one of the 2 references is a blog. I found no indepth third party coverage of him. created by a single purpose editor so possibly WP:AUTOBIO or advert for his servies. LibStar (talk) 07:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Seems to be a fair amount of third party references of a type that might indicate notability. If I had chanced upon some of those third party references I might well have come to wikipedia for more info. The article does not read as an advert for services. But As this is my first visit to AfD I'm not adding a keep or delete as I don't feel I have sufficient experience in interpreting the various guideleines at the moment. PRL42 (talk) 13:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Having done more research on the subject of this article and the various guidelines it now seems that this article easily satisfies WP:CREATIVE simply by number of significant institutions that hold his work. PRL42 (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Strong Keep. I'll answer the points in reverse order, and also note that I'm the originator of the article.
 * So far as I can work out, LibStar is a self-proclaimed deletionist. To my mind, that automatically goes a long way to undermining his or her position, unless it's backed up by an argument that's substantially better than normal. The argument above certainly isn't that.
 * I probably can't prove that my work is neither an autobiography nor an advert, but I can honestly tell anyone reading this that it's not. As far as evidence that it's not an autobiography goes, probably the best that I can do is to point out that it's not the only biography I've initiated. They can't possibly all be auto, so it's already fairly unlikely that this one is, but fundamentally you either you take my word for it or you don't. On the possibility of it being an advertising piece, I'll say this: I have actually worked as an advertising copywriter, and I am, currently, absolutely skint. But the idea of making money by writing about a handful of photographers is simply ludicrous. In my experience, advertising is a truly soul-destroying industry to work in. Compared to putting up with the bullshit around this place, however, I'd rate it as quite pleasant.
 * Tied in with the idea that it's an ad or an autobiography, there's the suggestion that I'm a single purpose editor. Well, there's an extremely good chance of that. I've contributed to and originated articles on music and photography, and enjoyed the process. Until we get to all of this behind the scenes stuff. I'll quote from the SPA page: "New editors should be aware that while courtesy and a warm greeting will usually be extended..." Maybe, but in my experience so far, it's the courtesy of a nest of vipers. The chances of me branching out into other subjects and making any sort of long-term contribution are declining very rapidly indeed. But purely for the record, my recent burst of activity started when I noticed that a number of the photographers included in a major recent exhibition in the city I currently live in weren't mentioned on Wikipedia. Being interested in photography, I thought I'd add them.
 * The link provided to suggest that there's "no indepth third party coverage" essentially proves just one thing: that when it comes to the Robert McFarlane I've written about, any web hits are swamped by those of another Robert McFarlane, who happened to be Ronald Reagan's security adviser and therefore had a camera pointed at him fairly frequently. This is so obvious from looking at the results that it's difficult not to regard the link's inclusion as a deliberate sleight of hand. Even so, the fifth entry on the linked page, at the time of writing, does at least suggest one thing: that as my article suggests, Robert McFarlane (photographer) could conceivably have been photography critic for the Sydney Morning Herald. Nonetheless, I'm happy to admit that there probably isn't a huge amount out there on McFarlane, and that one of the links provided is a blog.
 * Still, as far as I can see, neither of those points (Google news, the blog link) could possibly matter if LibStar's suggestion that McFarlane fails the specified test is refuted. So here we get to the real meat of the matter. If I had to rate the top ten public galleries in Australia, they would certainly include the National Gallery of Australia, the National Portrait Gallery, the Art Gallery of New South Wales and the Art Gallery of South Australia. Feel free to follow the links and form your own view on whether my opinion of those galleries is reasonable. They all hold examples of McFarlane's work. Then there's the National Library of Australia, which also holds his work; the fact that McFarlane was a major contributor to Candid Camera, an exhibition examining 30 years of Australian documentary photography at one of the country's major public galleries; and the 48-year retrospective of his work that's currently touring Australia.
 * Unless LibStar can mount a serious argument that all of this still amounts to a failure of WP:CREATIVE (4. The person's work either (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums) then he or she is being obtuse to the point of dishonesty, and is almost certainly acting in service of an agenda.
 * Finally, I realise that commenting on LibStar, even in a conditional manner like that, will perhaps be considered disruptive, but I'm going to be absolutely clear in this: it's far less disruptive than LibStar's behaviour. We're talking about someone who has suggested that my work is possibly corrupt, with nothing but the weakest conjecture to back up that opinion, and who maintains a user page that makes a point of mocking other people's work. I'm an irregular contributor around here, at the point of giving up in utter disgust, and while I have no interest in fights, I'm not going to leave this unremarked: in my opinion, LibStar isn't just someone who deserves to lose the argument he or she has picked, but someone who deserves to be censured. BlueThird (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * you do not WP:OWN this article. Secondly making personal attacks does not further the case for keeping, see WP:ADHOM. LibStar (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He does not claim to own the article but some of the points he makes seem very valid. In particular looking in some depth at the results of a Google search the subject of the article seems very suitable for Wikipedia. PRL42 (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm making absolutely no claim to ownership, and I don't see how you could think that I am. I've taken on your case for deletion, certainly, but I'm not in any way suggesting that my views on the content of the page are the only ones that can be allowed to stand. I'd be absolutely delighted if you chose to improve the article, but if you want it deleted you'll need to show that it doesn't meet the notability guidelines. You haven't. With regard to the idea of there being an ad hominem attack, it's a pretty weak case. I'll agree that right at the start of my response I flagged my observation that you appear to be a deletionist, and I've stated my considered opinion that, as such, your arguments should be held to a higher standard of proof than they might otherwise be. Some rhetoric – oh dear. But when it comes to personal attacks to further an argument, well, let's see. You've suggested, without any real evidence but clearly in an attempt to get your way, that you think I may be corrupt. I've suggested, with evidence drawn from the weakness of your link and material that you posted on your user page, that you may be acting in service of an agenda rather than good faith, but it's quite clearly an addendum to the rebuttal of your arguments. (Born of frustration. There's far more work in mounting a decent defence of something than in making an empty accusation, and given the way things work here there's really no option but to mount a defence.) Still, I made it clear that I know my last comments don't further my case, so that part of your response really just amounts to point-scoring. I notice that you didn't take the opportunity to add anything to your argument. Feel free to do so. BlueThird (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * such long winded arguments by the article creator that attack anyone that dare questions its notability is classical WP:OWN. Obviously bluethird needs to resort to WP:ADHOM attacks to silence me. LibStar (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't that you've questioned the notability of the piece, it's that you've got so little to go on. In my anger at that, I'm sure I've overelaborated. But I'm certainly not trying to silence you, and I'll repeat my earlier invitations: feel free to improve the page, or your argument for deletion. Incidentally, I hope you can see the irony in your second sentence. BlueThird (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This one source establishes his notability. That's the Aussie not the Yank ABC. Borock (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * it's copied directly from a blog website and therefore not a reliable source. LibStar (talk) 23:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's what the reliable source page actually has to say: "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." The blog that Borock refers to is by a career journalist, writing on the arts, and is hosted on a website run by Australia's national broadcaster. It is interactive only in the sense that comments were invited after publication, and don't feedback into the article itself. Purely as a matter of logic, either you haven't read and understood the reliable sources page, or you have, but chose to post that comment anyway. BlueThird (talk) 00:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Once again, a substantive biography is hauled to AfD for annihilation by this nominator rather than engaging in preliminary tagging for sourcing. WP:BEFORE, please. I've wasted more than an hour on another bogus nomination, so I'll just offer one tidbit out of the 86,000 Google hits for "Robert McFarlane" + "photographer"... SUBSTANTIVE BIO ON NEW SOUTH WALES GOVERNMENT WEBSITE, www.manly.nsw.gov.au/ Now comes the wailing about using Google to estimate the probability that sources exist and/or denigration of the comments of one who disagrees with the nomination. Carrite (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * it is not a New South Wales Government website it is a local government website. of course no comment on how the article creator chooses to denigrate the nominator. LibStar (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 86,000 Google hits does not equate automatic notability. Peter Banana gets a staggering 30 million hits. perhaps an article is in order? it's got to be notable!!! LibStar (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:Straw man. Why aren't you doing initial research and tagging for more sources per WP:BEFORE like you should be? Carrite (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 86,000 Google hits does not equate automatic notability. you should realise that. LibStar (talk) 00:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, I never said that. HOWEVER, in a haystack that large, you may rest assured that there are at least 3 keeper sources, which are already showing above and below in this thread. When you run a Google search on an unsourced article — which you should be doing EVERY time — and you see that many hits for a specific subject, you should say to yourself, "hmmm, this person is probably notable even if the article is currently sourced like a sack of dog doo... I'm gonna tag for Sources instead of hauling things to AfD, where several hours of valuable editor time will be wasted over the tilting at windmills in an inevitable Keep. WP:BEFORE. WP:DRAMA. Carrite (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment There's a news report with an interview of him here. Admittedly the exhibition does contain works beyond just his own. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 23:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also another newspaper article about a collection of his work here, including the statement "The exhibition...is the first comprehensive survey of four decades of his [McFarlane's] work, not only as a photographer of repute but also as one of Australia's leading photographic critics" Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is pretty obviously a shitty nomination, don't waste too much time fueling the WP:DRAMA. Carrite (talk) 00:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:ADHOM. LibStar (talk) 00:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As you wish, but finding extra sources, particularly for a BLP, is not a waste of time IMO, particularly if one of those sources contains a pretty unambiguous statement of notability. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 10:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Libstar, you talk about ad hominem but it is fairly clear you are carrying out a vendetta against another editor which could be construed as gaming the system. When I happened on this entry I checked other entries by the same originator to discover if he was, indeed, a single subject editor. I found that he wasn't but I notice that you seem to have been systematically picking on his articles for deletion - possibly as a result of his robust defence of the first article that you selected. It may be that your actions are entirely within the rules of Wikipedia but they are also those that drive away editors who may make valuable contributions. PRL42 (talk) 10:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment LibStar, if you really want this page to be deleted, why not concentrate on your idea that McFarlane isn't notable? After all this, you still haven't offered a single word to back up your assertion that he fails WP:CREATIVE. If nothing else, actually making some effort, however derisory, to engage with your own argument might go some way to convincing people that you were genuine all along. BlueThird (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * why are you so preoccupied with this? you yourself have engaged in personal attacks and WP:ADHOM attacks on me and now you expect me to engage in genuine conversation with you? if you'd been polite the first time then maybe. LibStar (talk) 01:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why so preoccupied? I'm new here. If I'm going to hang around then I definitely want to learn how to avoid this sort of rubbish. The ad hominem attacks started when you suggested, without any reasonable evidence, that the page was possibly an autobiography or paid for. The fact that you see fit to propose an article for deletion when you seem to have no intention of mounting a reasonable argument is another attack. From what Carrite has posted, you're acting outside Wikipedia guidelines in flagging this for discussion, and it seems unlikely that it's for the first time. I'm not asking you to engage in a genuine conversation with me, just to engage in a genuine attempt to defend your arguments and your actions. You are, after all, the person who started this AfD, but so far you've offered absolutely nothing that can't be trivially refuted. BlueThird (talk) 01:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I can appreciate the need for quality control at WP, really I can. Bad nominations at AfD waste valuable time that could be more profitably spent tagging or approving new articles however. Most importantly, when a nomination is a bad one, such as this one, things should not be fought out with knives to the last ditch. Nominators owe it to the project to say, "Whoops, sorry, nomination withdrawn" if they goof so that we can all get along with life. Every minute spent here is one less minute spent writing or improving articles or performing more vital maintenance tasks. AfD is not a place to get an adrenaline fix, it's a place to bring legitimately unsalvageable junk to get legitimately gone. Carrite (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please comment on the nomination, and not the nominator - this discussion doesn't need more drama. Nick-D (talk) 05:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You will note I am not talking about this nominator. I am talking about NOMINATORS, plural. What I speak of is a common Party Foul and it should not be. Carrite (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. I think this and this together with his work appearing in some important exhibitions and galleries is just enough to satisfy notability although I'd be happier with more sources.  I am aware that one of those sources is a blog but agree with BlueThird that in this instance it is probably a reliable source. Dpmuk (talk) 11:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Being part of the collections of a number of museums and the National Library satisfies WP:CREATIVE. Multiple appearances in museum collections indicate national importance and are usually indicators of notability in the visual arts (I'd almost say this would indicate automatic notability, but I suppose there are always exceptions). His "Received Moment" concept, which is independently sourced, is also a key indicator of notability. The blog is an extension of a publication and therefore passes WP:RS. There are enough references, particularly written by Newton and Robinson to satisfy WP:GNG.  freshacconci  talk talk  14:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sources above meet notability and depth of coverage - frankieMR (talk) 23:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Question. As one or two of you may have noticed, I'm new to AfD. But there has been significant debate, and no one has argued for deletion. Is it possible to wind this up early? BlueThird (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no hurry - frankieMR (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It probably is possible, but it might be a little controversial. There is indeed no hurry. -- Hoary (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, obviously. He gets this effusive write-up at ABC's website. Et cetera. -- Hoary (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. All references provided above combine to show that McFarlane has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources and so passes the general notability guideline. Jenks24 (talk) 08:47, 29 May 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.