→Brian Walski: ce
|
→Brian Walski: ce
|
||
Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
*'''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. [[User:Ace Class Shadow|Ace Class Shadow]]; [[User talk:Ace Class Shadow|My talk]]. |
*'''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. [[User:Ace Class Shadow|Ace Class Shadow]]; [[User talk:Ace Class Shadow|My talk]]. |
||
*'''Comment'''. [[Special:Contributions/104.163.158.37|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Walski&type=revision&diff=835852483&oldid=835851738 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]]. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 08:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC) |
*'''Comment'''. [[Special:Contributions/104.163.158.37|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Walski&type=revision&diff=835852483&oldid=835851738 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]]. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 08:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC) |
||
::Really, drop the stick. I made a minor factual comment. Move on.[[Special:Contributions/104.163.158.37|104.163.158.37]] ([[User talk:104.163.158.37|talk]]) 10:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC) |
::Really, drop the stick. I made a minor factual comment that you have misinterpreted as a slight, which is was not. I'm the one who added 20+ references to the article. Move on.[[Special:Contributions/104.163.158.37|104.163.158.37]] ([[User talk:104.163.158.37|talk]]) 10:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC) |
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]