Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Beames

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. Significant disagreement about the quality and quantity of GNG-suitable sources exist, so for now this is the only close available to me. Daniel (talk) 04:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Beames edit

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

appears to be a WP:BLP1E in that he happened to take a nice photo - most of hte sources are interviews or blackhat SEO and the few that aren't are just feel good pieces without any meaningful substance. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the profile image, I would suggest someone attending a photography workshop would be capable of taking a photo like the one uploaded here. Regarding the news articles, some of those referenced are among the most trusted and popular news media outlets in Australia (Herald Sun, Fairfax Regional News etc). If there’s an issue with using photography websites that are profiling artists, I would prefer to see those queried or removed rather than the entire Wiki page. Further to this, in defence of this page's existence, numerous credible articles have been cited on this page that highlight the significance of Beames' work in capturing natural phenomena - some of which have never been photographed. If you value science and art, and recognise the importance of their intersection, I imagine you can see why it is worthwhile to have Wikipedia freely share the knowledge we gain from artists such as Beames. Perhaps I could have made that more clear in the way I've contributed to this page - some article references have now been amended to focus on the significance of these rare occurrences. Hans Unterf376 03:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep: I agree there are some citations to unreliable sources, but there are sufficient reliable sources IMO to justify the page. Incidentally I disagree with HansUnterf376's criticism of the photograph (which betrays a lack of awareness of wikimedia copyright policies etc). Cabrils (talk) 06:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having a major newspaper feature your photograph is not the coverage of WP:GNG and Wordpress blogs, the Nikon website and the like aren't RS. This just isn't notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete man with a job. Tomaatje12 (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, not likely to ever be. GenQuest ^"scribble" 20:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not even come close to meeting the bare minimum notability guidelines. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 22:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not in accordance with the norms. Doesn't appear to be notable.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 03:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. These 'Delete' suggestions lack detail and consideration for the significance of the artist's works. They come across very blasé and all appear to be US-based accounts with a potential bias against the relevance this photographer holds with an international audience, particularly in Australia and New Zealand where he clearly has a large following. There are many photographers with far less notable works or citations on their Wiki page so it seems odd to single this one out for deletion over an opinion that internationally-celebrated works are not "notable". Would be very disappointed to see a page like this removed entirely. As a previous user noted, Beames has captured rare natural phenomena - some of which have never been photographed before. ‘’’Rodger4664’’’ (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC) — Rodger4664 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

After reading this comment I re-reviewed the sources. While some of the sources are not significant or are altogether non-existent, it does have 4-5 reliable independent significant sources and should be considered notable for that reason alone. I'm recanting my proposal to delete the article, it should be kept. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 17:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: then some source analysis is warranted, please

Which few sources are the most reliable and what depth of coverage do they offer on the subject?

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 01:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources are just barely enough to suggest that he is a bit more than a run-of-the-mill photographer. Only one person has even attempted to make an actual argument as to why the article should be deleted, and everyone else has merely said "not notable" and left it at that. I question whether those people even read the article. Mlb96 (talk) 04:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's a simple source assessment to explain the depth of coverage of the most reliable sources I found:

Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:FormalDude
Science Times	Third-party news organization. Not primary or self-published.	Article is entirely about Josh Beames.	✔ Yes
The Standard	Third-party news organization. Not primary or self-published.	Article is about Josh Beames's photography efforts.	✔ Yes
The Standard	Third-party news organization. Not primary or self-published.	Article is about a time when Josh Beames photographed natural phenomena.	✔ Yes
Baltimore Post Examiner	Third-party news organization. Not primary or self-published.	Article is about a time when Josh Beames photographed natural phenomena.	✔ Yes
Film News Daily	Third-party news organization. Not primary or self-published.	Article is about a time when Josh Beames photographed icelandic glaciers.	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

—FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 01:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. PR driven PR. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. The sources identified in the table are not good. They are either PR or indiscriminate local puff. Overly promotional language. Excessive focus on Nikon. Straight out advertising. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

News articles talking about a rare natural phenomonem that occurred locally and was captured on camera by a career photographer is not "puff", it is relevant and significant. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 00:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third relist to enable further consensus to emerge in relation to notability and quality of the sources, that is: Do the available sources provide significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, or not?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 09:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm grateful for FormalDude's analysis of the sources. I agree that some of the sourced articles are strangely written, but I can't find anything in any of them that would suggest they are sponsored, advertised or self-submitted that would eliminate them. Some of them are industry publications (or are in sections of the publication about art/design/etc.) so it's perhaps not surprising that they would talk about Beames' products. In terms of significance, the Standard article leans on the trivial side (and is local coverage) but the rest are more comprehensive descriptions about Beames' work and life (and aren't local publications). I agree they're not New York Times quality coverage, but they are nonetheless independent, reliable and third-party. That's enough to meet WP:V. I think we have to lean on the side of keeping here if the sources are examined closely enough. I agree this is a borderline case but there's not enough to convince me that WP:BIO is not met. Deus et lex (talk) 11:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on FormalDude's source assessment, this satisfies GNG. ♟♙ (talk) 12:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thiis editor was canvassed. duffbeerforme (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A more accurate source analysis of those ones in the above table. duffbeerforme (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Duffbeerforme
Science Times	PR credited to author of questionable existance.	Advertisement is entirely about Nikon and Josh Beames.	✘ No
The Standard	Based primarily on comments from Beames.	Local photographer does something run of the mill. Local rags makes a big deal about it. Indiscriminate local puff.	✘ No
The Standard	? Third-party news organization. Not primary or self-published. No By-line	Local photographer does something run of the mill. Local rags makes a big deal about it. Indiscriminate local puff. One of a plethora of articles about the exploits of "Patient Eye Imaging" that the Standard has published over the years.	✘ No
Baltimore Post Examiner	PR written by PR agent	Advertisement is entirely about Nikon and Josh Beames.	✘ No
Film News Daily	PR credited to author with Joke by-line	Advertisement is entirely about Nikon and Josh Beames.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Comment - @duffbeerforme, I think you are a good editor but none of your "Independence" or "significant coverage" columns here have much credibility, really. It really feels like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument to refute the source assessment done earlier in this AfD, but you are trying to justify that argument by discrediting the sources. As I mentioned above, the sources are not New York Times quality but they are independent (and only one is local) and there's enough to meet Wikipedia standards. Just because an article is largely based on someone's quotes doesn't mean it is not independent. Your comments like "Joke by-line" and "indiscriminate local puff" really don't help your cause at all here. I agree this borderline but I think we should err on the side of caution. Deus et lex (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- @Deus et lex:. "Joke by-line": What is the by-line? "Frankie Stein". Do you not see the joke there. "Independence": Maybe a bit harsh on the second Standard article. As for the three PR pieces, PR is never independent of the client. Who wrote the Baltimore Post Examiner article, PR specialist. What's your issue with my assessment? "significant coverage": I have three down as green, how is that not credible? As for "indiscriminate local puff", thats what they are. Typical of such local newspapers. Send us your news, your wedding photos, whatever, we'd like to publish it. I see you haven't raised the reliable column. Is that because you agree with my assessment? If you disagree then tell me about the editorial team at Film News Daily. Show me where there is any suggestion they have a reputation for fact checking. Let's check their about page [1]. "For native advertising" etc email ... Advertising designed to look like a legitimate article. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think @Deus et lex's point was that a source having a joking byline doesn't mean it's not relevant/independent/passing WP:RS (ex. this NYT article). And your generalization of the sources as "indiscriminate puff" seems more just based on you not liking local newspapers for some reason. One of the purposes of local news is to inform readers about local weather and nature, and that is clearly what is going on in most of the sources here.

I admit it does appear that the Film News Daily source may not be independent. But both of the Standard sources are totally acceptable, as is the Science Times source, and your arguments against them are quite weak. As has been mentioned, sources can be largely based on someone's quotes and still be independent. You speculate the Science Times author is non-existent, but don't give any explanation as to why. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 22:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude:. The NY Times by line, by Sabrina Imbler. Not seeing the joke. Just the real name of a credible writer [2] who is willing to put her name to the article.

OK, you concede the problems with Film News Daily. Let's take a closer look at Science Times. Start with the author. "Robert Carney". Any sign of him being a respected journalist. [3] [4]. Nope, not unless he is the baseball guy. So what has he written? Single figures on Science Times [5]. Articles like this blatant spam, if that doesn't set off your spam alert then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. And this. So all he has written is a few PR pieces on one website? Is it an actual journo or just a byline given to spam? Given Science Times is happily publishing these adverts without declaring their nature then they cannot be considered independent or reliable. Who are the editorial team? ? Where is their reputation for fact checking? [6] [7]. So scratch another one off your list. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Next let's look at Baltimore Post Examiner. Look at the carbon copy nature of Film News Daily and the Baltimore Post Examiner one. Start with a one paragraph intro telling us how he is a prolific photographer and how one of his pphotos are significant "His famous photograph titled ‘Iceland Glacier Under Over’ is nothing short of a testament to his work ethic, talent, and dedication." vs "His shot titled “Lightning and Bioluminescence” speaks to his talent for capturing unique moments, which inspire others to love nature as much as he does."

Next a short story about getting that photo, making sure to link to his instagram.

Next four paragraphs on his development. "Josh Beames initially began his journey as a mere hobby- occasionally taking photos on his Iphone 4, before eventually progressing into a prolific, world-wide photographer." vs "Beames initially started his journey as a hobby, but it soon developed into so much more." next line "Being ‘lucky’ enough to be placed near the Great Ocean Road of Australia, as well as the Grampians National Park, Beames was allowed to frequently practice his craft and consistently develop his talent, skill, and arsenal of innovative techniques in a variety of complex settings. Consequently, he quickly progressed into the leading, eminent industry figure that he is today." vs "Being fortunate enough to be located near both the Great Ocean Road of Australia and the Grampians National Park, Josh practiced and evolved his many skills and techniques in a variety of complex settings and environments and, eventually, developed into the world-class photographer that he is today." next line "Through his fascinating work, Josh Beames aims to help preserve the beauty and complexity of our planet as much as possible. In order to achieve this, he ensures he is always accurately illustrating the gracious and novel nature of the beauty of our planet; portraying the common day to day environmental problems currently threatening our environment; and actively incentivizing his viewers to make as much an effort as possible to preserve the beauty of our planet." vs "Through his photography, he quickly realized the extent to which he can help preserve our planet by depicting the fundamental environmental problems that our planet is currently facing; portraying the diverse, yet unique beauty of our nature; and actively incentivizing his viewers to make an effort to preserve our planet." Both then finish off the section with a meaningful quote from Josh.

Next section titles, "Partnering up with Nikon Australia" vs "Becoming a Nikon Z Affiliate". Next section "Final Notes" vs "Final take". "Josh also covers a significant amount of property, real estate, and wedding settings, a fact that he has credited as a source of his exceptionally wide experience-related expertise." vs "Aside from landscape photography, Josh also covers a large number of weddings, commercial estate settings, and properties. Consequently, he has an enormous amount of experience-based expertise."

These are not intelectually independent, they follow a PR script. So scratch another one off your list. All your left with is the local paper. It's not me not liking local newspapers, I just regonise their nature, having lived in a small town with a local newspaer, having known people who get regulary featured, having known the true nature of "achievments" reported on. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I can understand that reasoning. That leaves two reliable sources ~~which technically is not sufficient, so as it stands the article can be deleted.~~ ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 03:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two reliable sources is enough, Formaldude. And Hans Unterf376 makes a valid point below. Deus et lex (talk) 12:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Per WP:GNG, a minimum of three good sources is typically required.~~ ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 05:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Formaldude, have you read the policy? I quote from the page you linked: "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected". The reference to three is from a further link to someone's essay that says generally three or more is enough to rebut a claim for lack of notability. It's not policy. Deus et lex (talk) 11:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah my bad. Good then, I think it does pass. The two discussed sources are significant and reliable. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 12:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is only one source left in your table, tep articles from them but still one source. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- @Duffbeerforme:. I don't think it's fair to refer to the Herald Sun as a local paper. In 2017, it was the highest-circulating daily newspaper in Australia and getting coverage in this publication multiple times is very much a legitimate achievement IMO. User:Hans Unterf376 (talk) 02:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I never called the Herald Sun local. It wasn't in Formal's table. As for those articles, As someone stated above getting your photo published in a daily newspaper does not make you notable. As for the "articles" themselves they are on the trivial side with "The road to awe and wonder" coming in at a whopping 61 words, both complete with Instagram plug. Neither amount to significant coverage about him. And given the nature of the industry, unlikely to be independent. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I'm going with weak delete because the sourcing is poor. I can't find links to the two bare Herald references, and the Baltimore Herald Examiner is actually an LLC blog. The photos are pretty, but I don't see there being enough for an article. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:47, 20 July 2021 (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.