Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Edward Donato

The comments below were refactored from the main AFD page in order to aid readability.

SofiaValentino This whole thing is confusing. Why am I not able to upload pictures and restore Edward Donato's article to its original state. All of the photography is missing and all of the bio and education is not up. I originally started this article based on FACTS that I know to be true about Edward Donato. The article that exist right now is not worthy of any consideration nor is it the article I wrote. Please help me to understand how we may resolve this so Edward Donato's article may be judged properly and fairly. Edward Donato is a very well known photographer, who began his career as a child documenting missionary work for the Seventh Day Adventist Church. Which all can be verified. Please note also, I had nothing to do with vandalizing this article and I would like to find out who did. PINKVILLE you love photography- I respectfully ask you to look at Edward Donato's large format work.
 * Update: the SP-IP vandalized this AfD. -- Hoary 00:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC) ... PS: And did so several times. He also posted an odd diatribe in which he made some disturbing allegations. I've addressed these toward the bottom of this. -- Hoary 06:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Uploading pictures, etc.: Your confusion may be relieved by reading the several messages on your Talk Page requesting that you add sources and copyright status to any images you upload. For legal reasons Wikipedia cannot accept images without sources or appropriate permissions/copyright notice. Also, duplicate images are deleted. In a similar vein, the external links you provided do not back up the text, one link has virtually no information at all (in fact, it links to the IMdB page on his film, not him), and the other actually appears to contradict some of the "facts" in the article. Maybe you are adding biographical information based on personal knowledge of E. Donato… if so, this is a no-no called Original Research - any information added to Wikipedia must come from authoritative sources that are independently verifiable. You say that his status as a "well known photographer" and child documentarist can be verified - then, by all means, provide the sources to support that claim. All of this I write in hopes that any future articles you edit/create will not run into the sorts of problems that have arisen here, but the fundamental point for the Edward Donato article is that it doesn't seem possible to establish his notability. Indeed, I love photography, I've worked for a number of years with an important museum collection of photographic works, and I know or have met a number of photographers of varying abilities and renown, some of them genuinely famous or significant and some (like me) enthusiastic hobbyists. I also know some very able professional and amateur photographers, people who may even produce images of the highest quality, but who - for whatever reasons - have never exhibited their work, never been published, have never been mentioned in critical or scholarly works, never been recipients of awards, etc. Or, if they have achieved any of these honours, they may have been exhibited in a local group show, self-published, been reviewed only in the local weekly farm report, etc. All of which is fine, but not the sort of criteria to support an entry in Wikipedia. Finally, I can look at Donato's work - pointedly, only the images that appear on his own website (I can't find any elsewhere) - and judge their quality as I will, but my evaluation means nothing for Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with the quality of his work, only with his notability as a photographer. There are photographers who have articles in Wikipedia whose work - to me - is horrible, but who I have to accept are truly well known, whose work is in important collections, has been exhibited in significant solo shows, been the subject of critical and scholarly articles and publications, etc. That's the fundamental issue here. Pinkville 14:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

ThorLGNovember 4, 2007 Pinkvllle, quite valid thinking... But, lets talk fine art photography vs. fine art. I'm sure, with your background you are aware that museums have very small budgets for photography- if at all. For example, the budget for the Los Angeles County the museum was only $439 million dollars, last year. Out of that budget, photography got $0 dollars. MOCA's budget for photography was a whopping $10,000. They're still considering to invest in another series of Danny Lyon prints. But how much more of that can we take? And please don't show us anymore Ansel Adams... I'm serious. The Armen Hammer collection is most likely one of the better photography collections on the west coast, but it's rarely shown... Perhaps, twice every five years. The Getty hosted a photography exhibition back in 2004, which was brilliant. But- as lovely as daguerreotype photography is- not one of the photographers are among the living- bummer. That concerns me, because the rest of the art world is living in the now. Making moves, taking bold steps, getting attention. But not fine art photography. The Museum of Contemporary Photography, in SD California is fighting to keep it's doors open... Shame! The only place I recently saw really cutting edge work, was by a local punk rock photographer at a bar/gallery in Down Town L.A. And, yes he's published- but he lives in a single room, at he American motel above the world famous "Al's Bar." and has to share a common bathroom, yet loving life... Farther... I could buy a Witkin print for $1,500 to $3000. (What do you think a Rothko painting would cost me?) More than I've ever earned in the last 20 years.) Let's mention some big time fine art photographers, currently living...

Gregory Crewdson. Brilliant photographer, but he can't afford to live on his work. His earnings are from his teaching salary. Good thing he didn't sell the publishing rights to his images, like Cindy Sherman did, who lives quite modestly, after all these years... When was the last time you heard a Crewdson photpgraph was in any major collection in the U.S.- or Europe.? The Euro-trash look at us as just bizarre entertainment. Simple as that... But- a lot of rock stars and movie stars have Crewdson prints hanging in their mansions... I love cheezball L.A. Of course it's, 70x70 digital archival... Thanks to smart gallery owners- who will say and do anything to make a buck. There are less than a hand full of galleries, who honest curators will deal with "rich galleries" - and mostly on loan... And almost never, in photography. Any gallery owner will stop at nothing to hype their artist. Even if the artist has never be cultivated. News papers. Art rags. Websites. Local weeklies, Blogs. P.R. Local people- etc. Even major rags like the L.A. Times, or the beloved New Yorker will bite for press.... Most of it, flat out lies... As I'm sure you know... Top curators will tell you, "galleries and photography are very risky..." "avoid them if you can." Another thing, I haven't personaly heard or read any interesting commentary coming from academic circles in years, about photography. But I did come across this professor at Standford, who is teaching a social science course about, (above all things-) Brittany Spears. He was even so bold as to admit that most of his data was developed from celebrity blogs, and entertainment news reports. I suffer to think, all the social scientist coming out of Stanford in the next few years. (They all perhaps end up paparazzi and bloggers- to say the least.) And back on the art rags, Crewdson has not made a statement in years, since his falling out with Art forum. 222 pages of gallery advertisements, and 14 pages of artist reviews and articles. Crewdson's interview was cut down to a few very brief sentences. However! David Lachapelle has much to say, anyway- I suppose Edward Donato will have to hire Lachapelle's publicist to be in Wikipedia. I hope not... I went to one of Edward Donato's exhibitions- what a rich mix of people from all walks of life. Movie stars, gangsters, freaks and good folk, all in the same room digging the scene- and his work. He never showed up... A total no show... He has a fobe about large crowds... So what!, he's wierd person. And perhaps believes in God... not to judge. If notability is fame, then Wikipedia is lost when it comes to (fine art photography.) Which is the micro medium of the arts. Like the great curator, Ralph M. Parsons said, "I'll bet on the fighter with the street cred, over the store manager at Macy's, any day!" That's what great and raw photography is all about!" I think Edward Donato has the pedigree to be a part of the Wikipedia family, and would make it proud- and with long term contributions. Pinkville, I love anyone who loves photography. Yours truly, brethren in photography. ThorL.B. (P.S. Horay, you were just doing your job, I hope there's no hard feelings.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThorLG (talk • contribs) 17:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No "hard feelings", just mystification. &para; You write: I went to one of Edward Donato's exhibitions- what a rich mix of people from all walks of life. Movie stars, gangsters, freaks and good folk, all in the same room digging the scene- and his work. Then why not provide evidence for the existence of these exhibitions? Forget the "gangsters, freaks and good folk": the mass media are so absurdly fixated on "stars" (even quite minor ones) that they're sure to have reported on these events. If they actually transpired. &para; I suppose Edward Donato will have to hire Lachapelle's publicist to be in Wikipedia. You utterly missuppose. Consider Kensuke Kazama. If the weather is good today, there's a 70% chance that he'll be in Inokashira Park selling hand made 8&times;10 RC prints of his works for just &yen;1,000 a pop. (That's yen, not dollars.) And, I'm sorry to say, he's unlikely to find many takers: he has a blog where he describes his delight if he manages to move ten of these in a day. Yet his utter lack of celebrity and his lack of commercial success aren't obstacles to concise coverage in WP: he gets a short article that's composed of assertions backed up with evidence. &para; You say: I think Edward Donato has the pedigree to be a part of the Wikipedia family, and would make it proud - and with long term contributions. If or when he also has verifiable achievements, he can have an article; and of course nothing is preventing him (or Kazama or for that matter Lachapelle or Araki) from contributing verifiable material to Wikipedia articles. -- Hoary 20:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Not much mind is given to celebs in L.A. With exception to restaurateurs and out of control paparazzi, who snapped a photo of Avril Lavigne coming out of the gallery... I think it was X-17 or maybe it was TMz. "Avril seen coming out of West Hollywood gallery opening." No mention of the gallery, or who was showing. I wouldn't believe anything coming out of TMz,or X-17, for that matter. A little mention in the Local press, L.A. Weekly and L.A. Times. But nothing on google- about the E.D. exhibition. This was a while back... I think there will be more info about E.D. coming up. Sooner rather than later, I hope. Interesting about Inokashira Park I didn't know anything about it. Thank you. ThorLG —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThorLG (talk • contribs) 07:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)