Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Sabal


 * 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Seth Sabal
At the moment, the article contradicts itself, unless one can distinguish between (a) work for which a photographer is most famous, and (b) the most famous work of that photographer (conceivable, but farfetched). Let's not quibble and accept that he's claimed to be famous for both his fashion work and "The American Dream," a nine year project documenting the life and face of homelessness in America. He's from the US. I'd expect that somebody who's so famous that he'd do (unspecified) international exhibitions and world renown [sic] keynote speeches (as claimed in the article) would have a book out: a search at amazon.com, abebooks.com and bookfinder.com shows nothing. I accept that it can be hard to break into publishing when you're doing something that's as resolutely uncommercial as "The American Dream" (if it exists). Surely this is mentioned somewhere? Not by Google: a search for "seth sabal" "american dream" shows only this WP article and some commercial scrapes thereof. What's written about this person is not verifiable. Hoary 11:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Apparent advertisement for at best pre-notable subject.  Possible autobiography and/or sockpuppetry issues as well... Robertissimo 12:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I have seen the American Dream Display in Riverside CA. very nice, and attended a seminar in Los Angelas CA, where Seth gave a fashion class to 70 students. 

Its is very easy to find Mr. Sabal's work in the fashion industry.

As for books, their are plenty of famous photographers without published books. From my recollection the "Amercian Dream Project" was not about the photographer nor did the contributors want to profit from its showings, I am almost certain that the project help raise awareness to a group of individuals that were starting a homeless shelter. I do honestly cannot remember the name. I can tell you that I did see the show.

Furthmore; Hoary,  I would remove the part in your grounds for deleation about "Mr Sabal claiming to be famous", It's libelous. I do not know that Mr. Sabal or his attoneys have seen your enties or for that matter the Wiki article; however, I have forwarded your Libelous claim through to the legal dept. at Seth Sabal Studio in NYC. I agree with Robertissimo calling the artical Apparent advertisement, but this can be fixed. I will do that myself. .... contributed at 14:12, 18 October 2006 by [DrBillMartin]
 * Comment: (1) Thanks for the Vogue cover. This is now quite the most handsomely illustrated AfD that I've ever seen. (2) It's libelous. Gosh, crumbs. [Deep breath.] I hereby waive my normal WP right not to have legalistic rumblings made against me. (3) I note that DrBill seems to share the same idiolect (or anyway orthography) as at least one other advocate on WP of this photographer. -- Hoary 14:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment:DrBillMartin, please read WP:LEGAL. Furthermore, the AfD nomination states that the article claims that Mr Sabal is famous, not that Mr Sabal claims it himself. Any lawyer, or Mr Sabal's "legal department", isn't going to touch your threats or claims of "libel" with a bargepole. --Canley 15:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment:DrBillMartin, I am the legal counsul at Seth Sabal Studio, nothing was said even remotely libelous. Thank you Dr. Martin for you concern and your email.
 * I removed all uncited or bias. claims from the article entry. We are deeply honored to be written about on Wiki and we cannot control what people post about us. I have proof read the artical and approve the content. thank you.
 * News update! The new user who made that comment -- perhaps some relative of Rochelle Goldstien? -- has indeed just now wiped out all the "American Dream" stuff from the article. Now the claims about Vogue etc. are accompanied by a link. But when I click this, I read "Click here to get the plugin" (thanks but no thanks) on an otherwise blank page. And it appears to be a link not to a disinterested source of information but to Sabal's own site. -- Hoary 15:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * News update! Maybe you computer lack the flash player? The link gives me a website with the photographer work, most importantly work that is in this month's Vogue Brazil.
 * Comment Well, the article has been busted back to a stub that at least is verifiable which is a good thing. I don't have an opinion yet, but for those trying to get this article kept, please read WP:BIO.  Right now there is a contention that his work has appeared in several magazines, which would meet WP:BIO criteria.  What is missing though is reliable sources indicating this.  All sources and external links in the article are from Mr. Sabal's website which, for the perpose of determining WP:BIO, can't exactly be viewed as a neutral and reliable source.  Can someone produce external links or evidence of his work being published that is reported by a source other than his own website?--Isotope23 16:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: You say that there is a contention that his work has appeared in several magazines, which would meet WP:BIO criteria. I'm puzzled by this. I can't see anything to support this in WP:BIO (though I must admit that I haven't yet drunk my first coffee of the day and thus may have missed something), whereas when I look within that page for "photographer" I read ofPublished ... photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work; and I don't think that any of the various usernames who have defended this "artical", as they call it, have claimed multiple independent reviews of or awards for Sabal's work. -- Hoary 23:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The Sept. issue of Vogue Mexico and the current issue of Vogue Brazil (Oct. 2006) both have covers shot by the photographer. If you visit the websites of these publishing houses or subscribe to the magazines you can clearly see the presence of Mr. Sabal work. Coincidentally, the people that are fighting the issues of the articles are more than likely frustrated photographers, with professional jealousy. I am sure that Mr. Sabal does not care wither the artical stands or not; however, it would be childish and unfair to not have every photographer site every single sentence of all the work on all the articles on WIkipedia. I can understand that some people have nothing better to do. SO far the only person that has even been reasonable is isotope23, his points were valid unbias and very reasonable, plus you can tell he can see the trees in the forest. Hoary on the otherhand must really want to bother people, or is just hurting inside so much that he chooses to fight with his computer. I think its sad, get a job. (unsigned comment by 74.66.236.104)
 * Comment to 74.66.236.104 -- Please heed the notices on your talk page. You have repeatedly vandalized the article by removing the AfD notice.  This notice serves to alert all users as to the discussion here. SteveHopson 17:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Steve Hopson, your a photographer man! You have repeatedly vandalized the article by trying to have it eliminated for no reason, which clearly won't happen, it's all valid. Get it together, make a valid point to why it should be deleted at this point. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.155.58.158 (talk • contribs).
 * I have no idea why you would say that I have vandalized the page in question. I have restored the AfD statement several times in an effort to allow this discussion to take place.  I have not expressed my opinion in the debate because I am studying the question.  SteveHopson 21:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. So many comments and arguments, and no votes. Well I'm voting. None of the discussion above or on the talk pages convinces me that this article is anything but a vanity article. The fact that so many proponent(s) are anonymous speaks volumes, and suggests sockpuppetry. "Legal counsul"? Real lawyers can spell better than that. -Amatulic 23:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per Amatulic. Notariety is unverifiable.Montco 01:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Further oddities: I wonder about the photograph within the article, captioned International Photography Convention 2004. Photo of Seth Sabal by Felipe Zapata Vazquez. It's Image:Mexicocity2.jpg, which we are told there is Photograph of Seth Sabal Keynote Speech International Photography Convention, Mexico City 2004. Google has very few hits for "international photography convention" ; none of them seems related. But perhaps "International Photography Convention" is a translation of a name in Spanish. No matter, as anything so grand and so recent in which Sabal made the keynote speech must surely be written up on the web -- but when I google for either "seth sabal" mexico or "seth sabal" méxico, I see nothing about this event. I'm left with no reason to believe that Sabal made a keynote speech to any "International Photography Convention" in Mexico City, or to one of any significance. &para; Incidentally, Talk:Seth Sabal has some interesting bits in it. -- Hoary 15:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I have considered and researched this AfD over the past several days and cannot reach any conclusion other than Delete. None of my extensive searches has turned up any positive information about this photographer that was not generated by himself or as a result of the Wiki article.  I have found some extremely negative material suggesting unethical business practices, but this information has not factored into my decision.  Each thread suggested by the article or the editors above has not produced any verifiable information.  I have also watched the article shrink as other editors have questioned the accuracy of the information.  As a side note, this discussion has been very acrimonious with so many personal accusations.  While I resent the barbs thrown my way for my actions in trying to preserve AfD notice on the article, these did not factor into my decision.  I would suggest that administrators follow-up on the questions of Sockpuppetry as the article and this discussion would seem to exhibit evidence of this strategy.  SteveHopson 20:20, 19 October 2006 (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.