Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Azzara


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Steve Azzara

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

An article on a photographer that's been vigorously edited by a couple of SPAs and an SPIP. "Azzara has worked with some notable personalties", which turns out to mean that he's photographed the Dalai Lama and some slebs (as have very many people). Nothing wrong with that, but the few photographs that we've been shown via links and notes strike me as very humdrum indeed. Now I'm a mere editor and my own reactions to Azzara's work are of no consequence; I should of course set them aside and instead see what "Reliable Sources" (including noteworthy critics) say. But alas they seem to say nothing. No reviews, no books (other than self-published), no awards. I can't see notability here, and I can't see backup for anything beyond the most minor assertions (e.g. that yes, this or that sleb was photographed by Azzara). Hoary (talk) 01:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.   —Hoary (talk) 01:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No notability established by any definition. Fails WP:BIO. --Daviddavey (talk) 04:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:BIO LegoKontribsTalkM 04:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per the detailed and careful nom. --Crusio (talk) 07:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - inappropriate article, and includes a pornographic picture. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 08:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? I missed the pornographic picture, even when I went back to look for it. Maybe it's reduced to 1 pixel by 1 pixel or hidden from me by some other trick. -- Hoary (talk) 09:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, what happened to your fantasy? :-D --Crusio (talk) 10:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's the same as it was. What with talk of Amber Lee Ettinger and nude photography, it's that the Obama Girl will phone me up ("Hey Hoary, it's me") and invite herself over for a session. My Fujica G690BL would be at the ready. Er, what was the question? -- Hoary (talk) 10:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Subsequent edits by "ÆÅM" to the article suggest that he wasn't joking above and truly thinks that one or other of the B/W images was pornographic. Bizarre, but there's no accounting for distaste. My apologies to Azzara about this: one of the images struck me as ho-hum but the other as good, and neither is to me even remotely pornographic. -- Hoary (talk) 07:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Question I'm assuming shooting a portrait of the Dalai Lama means he's got to pose. Surely he doesn't do that for just anybody? - Mgm|(talk) 10:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I don't suppose he does, and I have not suggested that Azzara is just anybody. But I don't think that the notability bar is set so low that an article is allowed for anybody who isn't just anybody. The issue (or, if you prefer, non-issue) of notability aside, is there substantial discussion by disinterested third parties of Azzara's work? -- Hoary (talk) 10:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think he does... the Dalai Lama often appears in public and I think, given the nice public person that he is, that he'll willingly pose even for amateur photographers at such occasions. But as Hoary says, this is not really important, because substantial discussion by independent sources is missing. --Crusio (talk) 10:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   —Hoary (talk) 10:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * KEEP IT I have read all your comments and it seems to me the non of you really have a really substantial reason for the deletion of this article beside your own very subjective opinions (are any of you photographers - let alone artists), and that in itself should disqualify your statements altogether.  I happen to be a photojournalist and have interviewed  Mr. Azzara and can tell you he is a very well know photographer and is more then qualified to be an entry in Wikipedia. His work as a Celebrity Portrait photographer  alone is enough to warrant his entry, for you don’t get to do Portraits, (and I emphasize PORTRAITS  because of there very personal nature) of this type without being of some note and reputation in the industry.  Also, regarding the use of the word pornographic to describing Azzara's nude work shows me that art is a subject you should consider some study in.  Did any of you bother to go to the New York Academy of Art’s website and do a little reading?  This is an institute in the business of promoting and educating in the arts.  An establishment and its directors, who are experts in the field of ART, included  Azzara’s work in an auction to promote there cause surely didn’t consider this work pornographic.  Also, Azzara's work was selected because of its artistic merit , for he is not a student of this academy and was referred there (yes to Eileen Guggenheim) by the same celebrities who know him for his portrait work (they have a gala there every year) .  And about references - what is there now is enough  to consider him a viable entry, for I can run a list of current articles (in the photographer category and others - please don‘t make me list them)  that don’t  meet the requirements you are accusing this article of not meeting.  So, I hope your reason will prevail and allow Steve Azzara’s article to remain.  Wikipedia is supposed to be a place to contain the whole of human knowledge, and, is not, the photographic art of Steve Azzara part of that knowledge?   Oh, I forgot, his tattoo is also an artistic expression.  Why don’t you look up what it means?  --LAntonio163 (talk) 07:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC) — LAntonio163 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * If, as you say, Azzara is a very well-known photographer, then I'd expect critical commentary on his work. Where is it? Also, awards, solo exhibitions, and conventionally published books. Where are they? I don't say that these don't exist; I'm open to evidence that they do exist. &para; The charge of pornography was indeed a silly one. &para; I'll happily concede that I have seen examples of Azzara's work that look good. But the photos of slebs that comes up when one types his name into the Corbis search engine seem utterly humdrum. Now, I'll concede that my own tastes seem to be out of synch with those of the tastemakers, as (for example) the majority of the work in the recent major ICP (New York) exhibition Heavy Light strikes me as vacuous. Writing about that exhibition not as a blogger but as a humble encyclopedist, I'd keep mum about my own reactions and defer to the curators and reviewers. But for Azzara, who are the curators and reviewers? &para; You say "I can run a list of current articles (in the photographer category and others - please don‘t make me list them) that don’t meet the requirements you are accusing this article of not meeting". I don't think that anybody disputes that the very worst of Wikipedia is quite unbelievably bad. Thus for all but the very worst article (and this certainly isn't the worst), there's something worse out there. If you see something that's truly ghastly, please do fix it, encourage somebody else to fix it, or nominate it for deletion. &para; Azzara's bicep says 撮影師 (the first character of which I've simplified), which is Chinese (but, if anyone's interested, not Japanese) for "photographer". Yes. And so? -- Hoary (talk) 14:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom. --Tom 19:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - If you look at the article now, I have included a reference for a published work Azzara was involved in as a collaborator. This entry does meet the basic criteria for Creative Professionals required by Wikipedia notability criteria WP:CREATIVE “the person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work...".  The work is of  major significance and one we should all be aware of.  If you don’t think so I think those who have, or deal with those with, HIV would have issue with that.   If you truly have no bias toward this article or person, I would ask you as a reasonable individual to drop your deletion debate of this article.  I will continue to build my case, either way, and continue to add citations to show the articles validity. --LAntonio163 (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Second !vote by user stricken by Deor (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.
 * Delete per nom--I was a bit hesitant but it's clear to me now to which extent this is a vanity article for a not-notable enough person. And LAntonio, surely you want to rethink some of your word choices: if Azzara is a "collaborator" on that book (for which no independent third-party coverage is given, only unproven generalities), why isn't he mentioned even once in it? He took the picture on the cover, but "collaborated"? The subject of that book doesn't even thank him in her afterword. So, the WP:Creative criterion is NOT met, at least not that you can prove. Your sole assertion is not enough.
 * The charge remains: if he is notable, then prove it by showing the evidence (other editors have not been able to find it) that others beside you and his tattoo artist (and him, presumably) find him notable, notable enough to write about him. Until such evidence is produced, delete. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * delete I'm sure I searched in all the same places, but other than blog mentions or credit statements to photos I can no actual mention of him as an artist. That seems to be what I'd expect for any working photographer, and doesn't justify notability. MadScot (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - A photographer is an artist and a Creative Professional (if you have seen Azzara's amassed work on Corbis that alone is proof of creative professional work) WP:CREATIVE. PORTRAIT photography is a collaborative affort by its very nature. A portrait is a collaboration between artist and subject.  The definition is rather simple and clear don't you think? Noted "thanks" is not a requirement to meet the collaborative criteria- just the publication, so the citations stands. I have even spoke to Marvelyn Brown (author of The Nake Truth) about it and she confirmed the collaboration.  I'm willing to let that one go! As for the whole "vanity" claim, I am a neutral third-party so this claim is also invalid. I really hope you see the reason in this and discontinue this debate.--LAntonio163 (talk) 07:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC) — LAntonio163 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment LAntonio, if you have addional contributions to this debate, it is custom to precede them by "Comment", not repeat your !vote (the exclamation mark means that this is actually not a vote, as it is the arguments that count, not the simple number of opinions expressed). Removing comments or tags placed by other editors is considered vandalism, I guess you're new here and don't know this, but you should not do this kind of things. Concerning possible WP:COI, the portrait that you uploaded from Steve Azzara has as copyright statement that you are the owner of the copyright and release it into the public domain. On Azzara's website the same photograph is posted, attributed to "Sanders McNew". If you're that person, there is no problem from a copyright point of view, however, McNew obviously has a close relationship with Azzara and this is indicative of a conflict of interest. As for the fact that Azzara has produced creative works, nobody is contesting that, but that is not enough to establish notability. Unless you can come up with independent verifiable secundary sources (see WP:RS), this article is going to be deleted. --Crusio (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't find any evidence of significant, independent coverage; Google News just brings up a press release and a handful of photo credits, Google Books likewise. Taking a photograph for a book's cover is not the same as being the author of that book, and even if it was, the claim that the book was of "major significance" would have to be backed up with something more than the assertion of a Wikipedia editor. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 18:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Azzara's portrait photo is credited to McNew; however, all photos are copywrited to Azzara so there is no confict of interest. So, you do believe in giving credit to the portrait photographer. To quote you (" As for the FACT that Azzara has produced creative works, nobody is contesting that...nobody is contesting that") tells me you do recognize, at least, that he is a CREATIVE PROFESSIONAL which meets one of the criteria. HarperCollins and Marvelyn Brown also thought his portrait work of significance and that is why they pubilished that book in collaboration with his work. There are no “number” of citations to meet to establish that requirement - just that they are significant. The HarperCollin citation is a fact and significant, so it stands.  Azzara'a creative works are also a fact (as also stated by yourself).  So , the matter of significance is now a matter of opinion.  An encyclopedia is not a place for "opinion", but a place for fact.  If you regard Azzarar's work as a major or minor contribution to the field of photography that is your opinion. However, Wikipedia is a place for facts (with more about Azzara to come) and the whole of human knowledge, and, just like a photograph, I have chosen to record these facts here. The debate continues...--LAntonio163 (talk) 13:46, 01 November 2008
 * I'm afraid that there are multiple issues here that you fail to understand. First about copyright. You say that all images are copyrighted to Azzara. If that is true, and you are not Azzara, then they should all be deleted speedily for copyright infringement, because then you have no right to release them into the public domain. Second, if you are Azzarra, or are somebody closely related to him (in whatever way, friend, client, family member, whatever), then you have a conflict of interest. Third, zhether or not Azzara is a creative professional or not is not the issue here, neither is it an issue what my opinion of him is. I have voted keep for people of whom I had a really low opinion and the reverse. The issue here is notability. You really have to read the pertinent policies (they have been linked to multiple times above). For most of his life, Vincent van Gigh himself was not notable, because his work was ignored. He would not have been included in WP if it had been around at that time. The same thing is the case here. It doesn't matter at all what any of the participants in this debate think about Azzara's work. What matters is whether there are independent reliable sources where people have discussed his work. That will establish notability, nothing else. Opinions do not enter in this discussion for a second. --Crusio (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "copyright infringement"? I'm was never worried about any copyright issues with this article and you shouldn't be either!  I'm sure the artists involved would be more then happy with what I have done with their work, but, since you brought it up, a Free Art License should take care of it.  As to your "Van Gogh" reference, most people (art lovers or not) know the story of Van Gogh's artistic struggles.  Are you saying that Azzara's work should not be noticed because of what happen to Van Gogh? Does one really have to died before their work is noticed.  There are many artist who were noticed before they died. So your Van Gogh statement is invalid! Also, your assumption that I have something other then an objective third-party relationship with the parties involved is just that - assumption. --LAntonio163 (talk) 17:36, 01 November 2008
 * I'm not a specialist on copyright issues, but if you are not the owner of the copyright of those pictures, then I don't think you have the right to post them on WP and simply state that a Free Art Licence applies. Only the copyright owner can do that and you cannot just assume that they'll be "more than happy". As for van Gogh, all I wanted to say is that as long as anyone is ignored by the outside world (i.e., no reliable sources), then they are not notable in the Wikipedia sense (even if this later turns out to have been wrong, as in van Gogh's case). But I'm afraid that you just don't want to understand me, so this is the end of this discussion as far as I am concerned. --Crusio (talk) 22:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Wide search finds no third party sources which provide evidence of notability. Jenafalt (talk) 10:44, 2 November 2008 (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.