Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forensic foraging in photography

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 delete. My goodness, that was a mess. Sandstein 07:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forensic foraging in photography

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

Unreferenced original research written in pretentious language. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, gsearch brings up nothing useable, just a few user-generated posts on blog sites. Looks suspiciously like a case of WP:PROMOTION, as a substantial contributor is Bcraw44, and the article subject "was developed by William C. Crawford ..". Coolabahapple (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fortunately for the continued existence of many WP articles, pretentious language is not a reason for deletion. Lack of multiple in-depth reliable sources upon which to build an article is a problem, however. I was unable to find any RS through searches at Google or the Find sources alternatives. The topic fails notability thresholds per WP:GNG. --Mark viking (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. What Mark viking says (though I'd be tempted to change his "Fortunately" to "Unfortunately"). Delete. -- Hoary (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mark viking. Opencooper (talk) 05:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mark viking. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is more of a manifesto than an encyclopedic article about a notable subject. As a photographic technique or genre, the subject is not notable. I was unable to find any independent, reliable sources. Mduvekot (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forensic Foraging utilizes techniques by widely accepted photographers and painters. Please see Stephen Shore, Robert Frank, Walker Evans, and Jeffery Smart. This new genre of photography is just emerging but now it is fairly widely published with much more publication coming in the next 90 days. None of the comments here appear to come from professional photographers or painters. It is extremely premature to judge the value and relevance of this posting for at least another year. The genre is picking up momentum and becoming more relevant. And it is built on widely acknowledged techniques. DO NOT REMOVE! Review again on 12-31-16. Bcraw44 (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bcraw44, in that case it is a case of WP:TOOSOON, and the article can be recreated then. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Stephen Shore, Robert Frank, Walker Evans, and Jeffery Smart. I have seen the first three. I haven't heard of the fourth. Whether I am a professional photographer or painter is none of your concern (and whether you are is none of mine). You're merely a conduit for work on "forensic foraging" published in reliable sources. So what are the reliable sources? If more publication [is] coming in the next 90 days, then inform us, here, of what this publication is (or what they are). -- Hoary (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more. We read:

The photographic DNA of Walker Evans, Robert Frank, and Saul Leiter permeates the pedigree of Forensic Foraging. However, Stephen Shore's early volumes, American Surfaces and Uncommon Places serve as the primary influences on their present work. Shore demonstrated that the mundane delivered in color could attract a wide audience. [...] A sample of these carefully crafted images is then presented to provide pictorial highlights from the forage. Australian ex-patriot (Italy) painter, Jeffery Smart, also suggested some of the primary tenets of Forensic Foraging. His paintings of urban scenes exude the same heavy, layered, color saturation which is employed in this new approach.

The photographers Walker Evans, Robert Frank and Saul Leiter are indeed well known. The painter "Jeffery Smart" is surely Jeffrey Smart. Any "new approach" is likely to derive from older approaches. The older approaches don't make the newer one noteworthy. That aside, I don't notice the citation of any reliable source relating "forensic foraging" to Evans, Frank, Leitner and/or Smart.

The first draft (22 January) is digestibly concise. Here are some highlights:

Forensic foraging is a new (2014) photographic technique and genre emphasizing the trite, trivial, and mundane. The approach was created by William C. Crawford(Crawdaddy) of Winston-Salem, NC and Sydney lensman, Jim Provencher. [...] Crawford's first public showing of Forensic Foraging will be in the March issue of the Umbrella Factory Literary Magazine available online.

The latter is surely issue 23 of UFM, aka Umbrella Factory Magazine, a PDF of which is here. This aside, there doesn't seem to be much about Crawford's work on the web. He is written up here: "His first book is due out May 2016. The working title is Just Like Sunday On The Farm: Crawdaddy Remembers The Nam After 50 Years." (The latter book doesn't seem likely to be a work of photography; but either way, I can't find it.) Provencher is more obscure: I can't find anything about him or his work. -- Hoary (talk) 23:37, 11 June 2016 (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.