Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Isaacs

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 No consensus. Cbrown1023 22:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lee Isaacs

Lee Isaacs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable subject TheMindsEye 19:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The attention that the photographer has received from critics, curators and magazine editors seems to be enough to establish notability. The person sounds much more notable than the average photographer. --Eastmain 21:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Isaacs is my vote. This photographer is quite notable. Editor Hoary decided long ago he didn't want Isaacs' on WP for whatever reason. We both obviously see, along with others, that Isaacs work is as notable as half of the photographers on WP whether its art photography and/or commercial photography. I fleshed out alot of this article but I do understand to google Lee Isaacs is not easy since alot of people have his first and last name as a middle name and last name. I have a book here, UPsouth, that has many examples of his work. This is a Warhol project grant through Space One Eleven. He is in good company as far as the notoriety of the other artists here is concerned. Emma Amos and bell hooks are in the book along with Willie Cole and Marie Weaver. Cole is the only other male in this project. Maybe someone could sift through some of this. Artsojourner 04:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Yes, Isaacs' work seems considerably more notable than that of the average photographer (me?). His commercial work, as presented on his website, is good: way better than the average. His nature work seems variable: some works are pleasant but picture-postcardy, others are first-rate. ¶ However, what you or I think of his photography is (perhaps unfortunately) of little importance. What's important is what's verifiable about his work, and its verifiable notability in the eyes of others. ¶ Let's look at the external links, one by one. There's (i) Isaacs' site, automatically discounted as not disinterested. And then there are: (ii) Alabama Art Monthly Noles-Ross lists this in her bio. / (iii) "Johnny Flynton," 2002 / (iv) Worldwide Pinhole Photography Day' / (v) MedPartners Photo attribute to Isaacs. The second and fourth say nothing whatever about Isaacs. The third is a claim that Isaacs was the photographer for Johnny Flynton, a short film that may for all I know be first rate but for which IMDB gives a grand total of zero external reviews. The last shows a single, rather indifferent photo by Isaacs. The notes prove to my satisfaction that Isaacs participated in two exhibitions; in one, he was one of ten (or more?) participants, in the other, one of seventeen. ¶ WP:BIO talks of Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work. I see no independent reviews (just the odd mention), and no award. WP HOP says that Provisionally, a notable photographer is one who meets one or more of [eight] criteria; Isaacs doesn't appear to meet any of the eight. ¶ On 18 December, I posted the following question on the article's talk page: Any books? Any solo exhibitions? I don't see anything mentioned, and his own site is uninformative. / Isaacs seems to be touted here as a notable pinhole photographer. Google doesn't support this. The man's own site suggests that he's only now exploring the noncommercial, and it doesn't say anything about the commercial. / What am I missing here? I haven't yet received a satisfactory answer to that. ¶ We're told above that googling for the man's photography is difficult; I think it's very easy (just click this). There's little there, and certainly no sign of a book or major solo exhibition. And there's no surprise there, as Isaacs himself says that he is just now coming to terms with his “place in art”. I wish him all the best: Let him get a major solo show or a book all to himself, and then he will deserve and likely get a Wikipedia article. -- Hoary 06:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I am sure WP needs people like Hoary to hold the rules in check but I think with art the rules here should be more open. Isaacs is an artist who has as many credentials as at least half the photographers on here and I think he deserves an article. So I dont understand the power welding here its not needed nor warranted. Artsojourner 15:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Isaacs makes very modest claims for himself as an artist. Rather, it seems that he's a commercial photographer who's started as (self-conscious) artist. So let's first consider him as a photographer. WP:BIO has notability criteria for photographers. Isaacs doesn't meet them. WP:BIO is of course just a guideline, but there's no sign of verifiable alternative notability, other than being one of ten people to have contributed to one exhibition and one of seventeen to have contributed to another. As for the claim that Isaacs "has as many credentials as at least half the photographers on here", I'm willing to believe that a considerable number of photographers with articles on WP are very dodgy indeed (for all I know there could be entire hoaxes among them), but the simplest place to survey a list of photographers is (wait for it) List of photographers, and I wonder whether Artsojourner really believes that the credentials of Isaacs -- no solo exhibitions, no books, no particularly famous (or in modish language "notorious" or "iconic") photograph -- outclass those of even five percent of them, let alone fifty percent. (Would he care to choose one letter of the alphabet and compare Isaacs with listed photographers whose surname starts with that letter?) ¶ I also don't understand what's being said about "power welding" (wielding?): I for one am arguing one side, perhaps ineffectively but I think politely; Artsojourner and others are entirely free to argue the other. ¶ Again, none of what I've said belittles Isaacs, his work, or his chances of getting an article after future advances in his career. -- Hoary 16:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete Notability not established, and the article reads like something from his agent ("Hard to tie down, Isaacs has involved himself with ..."). Wikipedia is not a wire service or promotional site. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep If even some of those who want to delete for non-notability admit that the photographer is relatively notable, what more is there to say? DGG 04:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Eh what? I see only one suggestion of this by somebody making a "delete" vote; it's where I say: "Yes, Isaacs' work seems considerably more notable than that of the average photographer (me?)." I hardly thought it would be necessary to labor such an obvious point, but [sigh] there are millions of photographers, of whom millions are average. I'm one of them. I can get the lighting right. I can get the exposure and focusing right. I can produce a handful of photos that won't put you to sleep. But compared with the hundreds of notable photographers, ranging alphabetically from Berenice Abbott (or earlier) to Stanislovas Žvirgždas (or beyond), my photographs are crap. Perhaps I merely suffer from false modesty -- but worries about this are by the way, because editors can write a substantial amount of verifiable information Abbott or Žvirgždas whereas they can't do so about me, and Abbott and Žvirgždas have verifiably had major solo exhibitions and have had books of their works published by non-vanity presses. So there's a huge gulf between (a) the average joe (or the average hoary) and (b) the photographers who rightly get articles in WP. Isaacs doesn't (yet) belong to the latter: he doesn't come close to satisfying WP:BIO or any alternative that anybody has yet suggested. He's way better than I am: good for him, and I hope he goes far. If/when he does, he'll deserve an article. -- Hoary 05:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC) slightly rephrased for clarity 23:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP Isaacs work on 20 issues as a photography contributor and photography editor to an arts magazine counts for something, besides all of the other things he has done both artistically and commercially. Isaacs has work in a book. He was a still photographer on a film. Isaacs continues to develop new techniques for Pinhole and this all counts for something. I do not compare Isaacs work to the average artist as I feel he has done so many things and warrants his own article on WP. Artsojourner 06:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • But Artsojourner, you already voted "keep", just four days ago. (See above, "Keep Isaacs is my vote.... 04:53, 5 January 2007....") Of course you are most welcome to add additional comments and arguments, but it's odd to preface them with the word "KEEP": doing so implies a second vote. -- Hoary 06:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • So much on the form; now, comments on what you say. Alabama Art Monthly may have been an excellent periodical but neither the British library nor any of the great majority of (all of?) British libraries stocks it. Most recent or contemporary photographers who get articles in WP don't merely have a few pages in a single book, they instead have entire books devoted to their work. The film is commented on above: being the still photographer for a film might be of significance if stills from it were of some significance; this film has not a single external review that's linked to from IMDB, and its only mention within WP is that within the article on Isaacs. Pinhole photography: what are these new pinhole techniques of Isaacs'? The article merely says that he studied pinhole photography and that he participates in Worldwide Pinhole Photography Day (as do very many photographers, one might add). -- Hoary 07:04, 9 January 2007 (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.