Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Walski

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. Trending keep if one discounts the last opinion which is quite superficial. Sandstein 20:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Walski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not particularly notable as a photographer, no claim of notability there. Seems to have come to attention only during the Iraq photo controversy, which in itself isn't particularly noteworthy. Not enough references to verify any claims given. hiàn 03:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. As it stands, pretty much BLP1E. Thais 1E should not be forgotten, but there could be a better place for it. (I haven't yet looked for other material about the biographee.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete BLP-1E FloridaArmy (talk) 12:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's not BLP-1E as the subject is persistently covered in many reliable sources. I found numerous books on photography and journalism that mention this story between 2006 and 2016. I added about ten sources spread out over a decade, but could have come up with more if I had to. Unfortunately for him, he is famous in a durational kind of way, as what he did was very unique and has been widely and continuously reported in the 15 years since he did it. Because this deals with the truth, digital manipulation and war, his story appears as a cautionary tale in books on ethics, photography, journalism, computer culture and philosophy. 104.163.158.37 (talk) 04:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just added another source from a 2006 book on propaganda and information warfare.104.163.158.37 (talk) 05:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. 104.163.158.37 (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He does indeed get a double-page spread (pp 480-481) in Photo Box: Bringing the Great Photographers into Focus. -- Hoary (talk) 07:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that he is not that notable for the photographs he took. However he is etched into the history books forever for the one he doctored.104.163.158.37 (talk) 08:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled by the positioning of your comment, IP. If you are saying that I said "he is not that notable for the photographs he took", then no, I said no such thing. The doctored photo is mentioned in the page spread in Photo Box, but only mentioned there: most of the page spread is devoted to an unrelated photograph. -- Hoary (talk) 13:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

oh relax. You called him a case of BLP1E above. Sources only establish him as notable for his unethical photo.104.163.158.37 (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I said that the article as it then was looked like a BLP1E. (I did not say that a BLP1E was all that would be possible.) ¶ Thank you for this pair of edits, in which you cite Photobox (or Photo Box; the precise title isn't clear even from the book itself), ISBN 9780500543849. I repeat what I said before: The doctored photo is mentioned in the page spread in Photo Box, but only mentioned there: most of the page spread is devoted to an unrelated photograph. How is this page spread compatible with your claim just above that Sources only establish him as notable for his unethical photo? -- Hoary (talk) 08:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You called it BLP1E above ("As it stands, pretty much BLP1E."), which logically implies that he is not notable for his photos. If you had thought his pics were notable, you might have said something along the lines of "He's notable for his pictures" instead. Anyway, you found your way in the end, and that's a good thing. Let us not make a mountain out a molehill.104.163.158.37 (talk) 01:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- BLP1E doesn't apply per 104.163.158.37 above. The fact is that his career, including the alteration of that photo, which is an iconic example in the field of forensic photography, is discussed in RS that are widely distributed chronologically, so he meets GNG. Here's another one, Scientific American, that's not presently cited in the article. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A low level Stephen Glass type is still de facto GNG. Even if the existing citations need work, there's nearly 2 dozen listed and several more that could be drawn upon. Ace Class Shadow; My talk.
• Comment. 104.163.158.37 is either unwilling or unable to understand what I write above, and seems more concerned that I enjoy sufficient relaxation. (I already do, thanks.) Walski is a living photographer whose Wikipedia article suggested is notable for one event. The article still suggests he's notable for the one event. Meanwhile, he gets two pages in Photobox aka PhotoBox aka Photo Box -- a source that the very same IP added -- for his photography as exemplified by a single photograph. Inclusion in this book is quite an achievement, not one shared by many photographers. The single photograph is one utterly unrelated to the main subject of the Wikipedia article about him (an article largely written by the IP). This book -- originally published in Italian, published in English translation by Thames & Hudson -- rightly mentions Walski's misdeed. It's right that the Wikipedia article discusses this. I don't know what motivates the IP, but their edits seem compatible with a desire to represent Walski as insignificant aside from one fuck-up. This misrepresents Walski. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. -- Hoary (talk) 08:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really, drop the stick. I made a minor factual comment that you have misinterpreted as a slight, which it was not. I'm the one who added 20+ references to the article. Move on.104.163.158.37 (talk) 10:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete""" BLP1E. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 13:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.