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. 1ne 09:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive research reveals nothing about this person anywhere in the Nexis or ABI/Inform databases except his relationship with Robert Denning in the 1940s and 1950s. A long-ago connection to a marginally notable person does not equal notability. Allegations of civic and artistic notability in the article seem to be nothing but puffery by David Clarkson McJonathan-Swarm, who seems to like to talk up his friends on Wikipedia. See detailed discussion in the talk pages Uucp 14:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom ST47 17:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Addhoc 11:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A well written article about someone (or something) not notable has not a place on Wikipedia. All non-cosmedic edits were made by User:D C McJonathan (just like in his own auto-biographical article: David McJonathan-Swarm). --Abu Badali 23:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this person's cumulative lifetime work and accomplishments are far greater than hundreds of wanna be rock stars who have recorded one album and have been kept on wikipedia. this has justifiable notability in the man's life credits. google wasnt around when he did most of his work :) Anlace 02:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that it would be innappropriate to rely on google; note that in my nomination above, and the extended discussion on the subject's talk pages, I never refer to google. However, I did check periodical databases that stretch back, for some periodicals, to the 19th century. I also checked for books by or about him. Nothing could be found. My best bet is that this guy was almost purely a commercial photographer, somebody who snapped pictures that appeared in catalogs and/or magazines but without his name on them (or with his name, but that he failed to make much of an impression). Lots of people have worked hard at their jobs without much public recognition; this does not mean that they didn't do their jobs well. However, it also does not mean that Wikipedia should provide them in death with the exposure they never received while alive.

I attach some significance to the fact that nobody ran an obituary for this person. No objective source seems to have thought he was important. Uucp 13:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It's a strangely written article at best. I learn that he was a photographer, was very rich, and had a succession of boyfriends. I don't see anything noteworthy about being rich or having boyfriends. Yet the lead to the article is (after markup-stripping): Edgar de Evia (30 July 1910 – 10 February 2003) was an American photographer, artist and author. Partner and mentor first of Robert Denning and then of David McJonathan-Swarm from the mid 1960s until his death. The second half of that seems trivial; maybe I've overlooked something but I see no sign in the article that he was an artist (other perhaps than by virtue of being a good photographer), and his writings (perhaps aside from occasional magazine articles about photography, etc.) are unpublished so I think not noteworthy. If the article should be retained at all, it needs radical pruning. Or is WP something like a social register? ¶ Commercial photography of the fifties has a certain vogue; e.g. the attention given to the last part of Nickolas Muray's career. A commercial photographer wouldn't need to have Muray's fame to merit inclusion, but I'd like to see a greater quantity of disinterested evidence for de Evia's photography (I don't have access to libraries where I can look up popular US magazines of the seventies and earlier). And the non-photographic (his boyfriends, cars, apartments, etc.) seems trivial at best. -- Hoary 08:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• And another comment: both Photography from 1839 to Today (Taschen) and The Oxford Companion to the Photograph are large books that mention very many photographers and have indexes. This photographer appears in neither index (whether under "De Evia", "Deevia" or "Evia"). Of course these are both general books; is there something akin to a reference book to US photgraphy, to commercial photography, or even to something as specific as postwar US commercial photography? If it exists, I may be able to locate a copy. -- Hoary 00:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nor does he appear anywhere among the 133 photographers discussed in Helmut Gernsheim's seminal Creative Photography: Aethetic Trends 1839-1960, which book includes a number of photographers working in America in the years when de Evia was. The man does not seem to have hit Gernsheim's radar at all. Uucp 03:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The former seems an extraordinarily stringent requirement. I'd noticed that he isn't numbered among the far more than 133 (five hundred, perhaps?) photographers in The Photo Book (Phaidon) or among the very many in 20th Century Photography (Taschen) — but then again, neither are a great number of photographers who merit posthumous exhibitions, monographs, etc. Do you have any large books with indexes? If so, see whether this man pops up in them. Unfortunately I don't have any book devoted to US photography, commercial photography, etc., in my own shelves. -- Hoary 04:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not intend to establish inclusion in Gernsheim's book as a test of photographic noteworthiness. Rather, I was making a good faith effort to find evidence of noteworthiness in the only photography book I own in which de Evia might conceivably have appeared. Anyway, he's not in it. Uucp 03:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. As it happens, just one hour ago I scanned through the library shelves for a book that promised to mention him, or even discuss him. The best thing I came up with was Rosenblum's World History of Photography. But no, he doesn't appear in the index (and yes, I looked for his name in various places within this). ¶ WP:BIO does talk of Published . . . photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work; still waiting for this, I'm about to vote. -- Hoary 04:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Yes, he existed, but he seems unremarkable other than for his photography. (For example, he does seem to have lived in an unusually pleasant place, but this wasn't, isn't and presumably won't be open to the public; and it doesn't seem to have given rise to anything else.) So he stands or fails as a photographer. I have been waiting for some reason to think that he meets the photographer-related criteria at WP:BIO, but I haven't yet received it. -- Hoary 04:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His former house has been gutted and is now a Ralph Lauren store, so it is "open to the public," but not as any kind of monument to de Evia. Uucp 12:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sit semi-corrected! -- Hoary 12:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar de Evia was a well-known photographer in his day, and I have seen numerous citations about him in the New York Times and elsewhere in his day. Just because a person does not appear in or on Google does not make them somehow unknown. As a reporter for the New York Times who wrote the obituary about Robert Denning for the Times, in which de Evia is mentioned, I would be happy to contribute footnotes, et cetera, to establish de Evia's prominence in his field, which was largely commercial photography. Though his work may often have been workaday in its quality, he was a well-established and frequently credited photographer in his day. I suggest that though some Wikipedians might consider him "unremarkable," that does not negate that fact that he was a well-established and often frequently credited commercial photographer in his day. My suggestion is to leave the article, allow it to be streamlined and footnoted, et cetera. The stridency over this article's "importance" seems rather extreme, no? There are numerous article in Wiki about people, incidents, etc, that easily could be deemed "unremarkable." Mitchell Owens (forget to sign in but my username is Mowens35), 72.43.213.236 13:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just about Google. Some folks even made a trip to the library, with no effect. It's not that "some Wikipedians might consider him "unremarkable,"", we have clear standards. Also, the existence of other deletable article is not an excuse to keep this one. Please, consider logging in and signing your posts next time, Mr Owens. Best regards, --Abu Badali 16:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The history of photography is a totality of the minor and the major talents. And if the minor talent made enough of an impact on others in his field, and was sufficiently well-known in his world and amassed significant professional credits, then I feel he should be included. Mowens35 16:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What's being stated on this afd is that this person did not "made enough of an impact on others in his field" nor "was sufficiently well-known in his world" neither "amassed significant professional credits". Evidence of any of these claims would be more valuable than any Keep or Delete vote. --Abu Badali 16:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This photographer was a significant influence in his day and started several contemporary photographers. He had many credits for editorial work, but this was all pre-internet and many of the tear sheets which show the credit to not include either magazine or date. Some do and I will try to add those. Given just a bit of time I believe that the significance can and will be shown. The importance of the automobiles and the houses, both in New York City and Connecticut, is that they were used in photographs and became a central part of his contribution during that period. His books albeit are unpublished at this time with the exception of one he wrote with Dr. Stearns titled A New Synthesis which I will add. The Rhinelander Mansion was not "gutted" it retains a great deal of its original architectural detail, but was adapted for a commercial use and restored or added to. It was truly one of the grand apartments in New York and was used in many editorial photographs and well as commercial work. Any editor of national magazines or New York art director of his period would know the name. Doc ♬ talk 15:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All we are aksing here are evidences for this extraordinary comments, Doc. You have being the sole editor for this article since September 30, 2005 but failled to provide them. Living before the google era doesn't exclude you from the Internet. There are pages for all major old time actors, photographers, architects, physicians... Please, think carefully about that, Doc, don't you think you're over overprotective of this person just because you were so intimately related? Remeber #3 on WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives.". Take good care, --Abu Badali 16:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)--Abu Badali 16:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comment At the time that I started the articles on Robert Denning and Edgar de Evia, they were the first as I have stated on my user page, I knew little about Wikipedia referencing. I have tried to learn protocol here and had started adding references to both articles. There are many holes on the internet and many "major old time" persons that have nothing on-line. This is one area where a good on-line encyclopaedia has the opportunity to be an invaluable asset. Part of my difficult with providing references on this article is that many of the tear sheets that I have, even when they show the credit do not have the issue and in some cases not even the magazine in which they appeared, as I said above. I have in a number of cases seen on Goggle a magazine for sale on eBay with a cover by Edgar de Evia and have purchased several which then give the necessary citation, but this all takes time and I do have a life beyond Wikipedia. With regard to your comment below, I don't know of any other personal friend of Edgar de Evia that has edited this article. Doc ♬ talk 22:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just had lunch with David McJonathan-Swarm and he told me about the article I had done on him being deleted. He had advised me against it, I am sorry if I did a bad thing for Wikopedia, but I thought he deserved an article. I had class materials and article copies from when he made the Guinness record back when I was his student. Much of it I admit I lifted from his user pages. I can not imagine anyone knowing anything about photographers of the 1950s and 1960s not knowing that Edgar de Evia should be included here. He had covers on many of the major magazines and was always doing huge ad campaigns, some such as Body by Fisher, with credit. I haven't done that much yet on Wikipedia and I'm sorry if I have broken rules, but the way David McJonathan-Swarm has been treated here the last week, I'm not sure that I wish to expose myself to this forum either. The other editors here have been neither fair or shown good faith in my opinion. LouiseC 20:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You don't have to apologize that much for creating the article on Mr. McJonathan-Swarm. It's ok to go on such mistakes when we're new users. But maybe, as an experienced user, Mr. McJonathan-Swarm should had avoided editing his own article. But this is over now.

But LouiseC, I'm interested in your opinion... do you think Mr. McJonathan-Swarm is the only person that knows about 1950s and 1960s using the Internet? It' has been stated that, being a pre-Google photographer, it is expected that we don't find much information about Mr. de Evia on the Internet. Is Mr. McJonathan-Swarm the only of many de Evia's fans that uses the Internet?

Was this person really notable when all users (3 that I can count) doing relevant changes to his article were personal friends of him? There's no need to feel bad for Wikiepdia not having an article about him. It doesn't mean he wasn't good on what he did. Take good care. Best regards, --Abu Badali 20:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abu, my nose is clean when it comes to your accusation. I was not a friend of Edgar de Evia. I never met the man except once, in an elevator, more than 10 years ago, because I was visiting a friend who lived in his building. And I have never met David McJonathan-Swarm, though I certainly contacted him when I wrote Robert Denning's obituary in the New York Times, and I have exchanged probably only 3 emails with him between 2003 and 2006. I have no personal connection to any of these people, at all. All I am concerned about is that someone whom I believe was prominent in his field but is woefully undersourced, as are so many individuals who were prominent in the design field, can have his/her article scheduled for deletion based on that criteria. So I'm doing what I can, as a design scholar, to help the article meet Wiki's criteria. Mowens35 13:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Certainly meets the criteria set forth at WP:BIO. The article is sourced and verifiable. Even a resource as poor as google turns up satisfactory verifiable information. As an aside, the nomination itself seems to be somewhat less than good-faith or civil as the nomination comes across more as a dispute with another wiki-editor than it does with the merits of the article. Agent 86 07:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Agent86 ... his points are well taken ... Wiki allows lots of wiggle room in its policies re documentation, verification ... and if that's not allowable, then Wiki needs to make a more strigent statement with no wiggle room of any sort, for Google or elsewhere. One of the extraordinary values that Wiki has become (in fact, which it has allowed itself to become, via oversight policies) is that it is an ever-expanding resource, not without problems and issues. But given that as a scholar of historical design, etc, many of the people I research and write about for a variety of publications are unknown and will remain so until somebody gets a contract from a magazine to elaborate on their lives and importance in their field, or at least their influence and prominence in various arenas, Wiki is an amazing place to establish that kind of research. It is terribly odd that say, for instance, if I wanted to post an article about the French furniture designer Marc du Plantier, about whom I'm one of the few people in the English-speaking work to write about for a major publication, that my research if for naught, according to Wiki, if it hasn't been published; but then, once the article is published (in this case, in ELLE Decor), suddenly the research becomes reputable, even though the archival material I used to write the article is entirely in a private collection. This is a debate for another day ... Mowens35 13:14, 29 August 2006 (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.