Talk:Lee Isaacs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notable?[edit]

Any books? Any solo exhibitions? I don't see anything mentioned, and his own site is uninformative.

Isaacs seems to be touted here as a notable pinhole photographer. Google doesn't support this. The man's own site suggests that he's only now exploring the noncommercial, and it doesn't say anything about the commercial.

What am I missing here? -- Hoary 15:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I share these concerns about this article. While cleaning it up, I found it to be full of undocumented assertions ("Isaacs is considered a master of Pinhole photography" (By whom?)), and lofty POV platitudes ("Often called the photographer's photographer" (What does that mean? Who says that? Why is that relevant?)). After working to establish a NPOV, I find that the article does not really establish Isaacs notability. SteveHopson 16:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • just being the still photographer of a film gives him some notoriety wouldn't you think? I wish there were a way to allow viewers to know how much he has given by way of contributes to so many up and coming photographers but that doesnt seem to help notoriety though and he was selected in the last few years to be in exhibitions that would propel some artists hgher in the ranks. Maybe I could get a list of collectors of his work and companies he has worked with. He is one of the artists I dont know alot about beside only art contributions but I could try harder. He is Hard to Wiki with Lee as a first name unless you subtract all of these peole using his first name as a middle name but you still end up with over 200 articles on google. I dunno. Tell me something? I'm game. Artsojourner 01:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually I've not been able to find any verification of his working on the film or of the film itself. And no, I don't think working as photographer for a single film would in and of itself establish Issac's notability -- a lot of people have done this without meriting Wiki articles. In fact, IMDB.com lists four other photographers who also worked on that film, none of whom have Wiki articles. The same is true for being a teacher of photographers. Check WP:BIO for the standards that establish notability. SteveHopson 03:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contour: The Definitive line Photo Lane national and international commercial photography sourse and listed as the only photographer from Alabama.

??? Artsojourner 05:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

??? I dont see the point of doing this any longer. This artifice seems and feels utterly ridiculous. What are we doing here? It really feels yucky at this point. Beat me up already Geez!!!! Artsojourner 05:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The movie: See Steve's comments. Contour: Yes, he participated in a group exhibition. Photo Lane: Yes, he's a commercial photographer. I don't think anybody here questions these, or that anybody is knocking Isaacs (who seems to have just made a change in direction and may do very well at it). But I'd have expected one or more books, or one or more solo exhibitions, or something similarly remarkable. WP:BIO talks of Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work; see also these notability criteria. -- Hoary 13:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have fleshed this out a bit more and will be adding even more information. This is now at least as important as many of the artists I have been looking at on here from the artists list. Let me know what you think. Apparently many of these clients are regular customers. Thanks Hoary for your help too. It really is appreciated. Artsojourner 18:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prodding and Ayeffdeeing[edit]

First, the legalisms.....

I "prodded" this article: added a template suggesting that it should be deleted. That's because I think it should be deleted. Another user removed the template. Presumably he or she [let's suppose he] thinks the article should not be deleted. I disagree with him, but I have no objection to his removal of the "prod": he's fully entitled to do this.

His edit was reverted, but I reverted the reversion. (Yes, yes, we're in Lewis Carroll territory.) People aren't free to remove AfD notices. They are free to remove Prod notices.

And now more meaningful stuff.

I still don't see a reason for this article and I'm willing to send it to AfD. However, I'm in no particular rush and I'm very busy. So I'll wait a week or so before sending it to AfD. Anybody else is perfectly free to do the same ahead of me; but I'd suggest waiting a couple of days at least. Meanwhile, I invite anyone who thinks the article should be preserved to improve the article so that it shows how the photographer is notable. -- Hoary 11:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have fleshed this out a bit more and will be adding even more information. This is now at least as important as many of the artists I have been looking at on here from the artists list. Let me know what you think. Apparently many of these clients are regular customers. Thanks Hoary for your help too. It really is appreciate. Artsojourner 18:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're working hard on creating an article for somebody who, at this point, does not merit an article. That's no great criticism of him: I don't deserve one either, and this year's pile of in- and outgoing new year cards include only three or four or so of people who do. Also, he may well deserve and get one later.
Thus I'm close to nominating this for AfD. -- Hoary 06:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010 -- Edits, sourcing and notability[edit]

I question edits made by at least two editors -- User:OneMarkus and User:Artintegrated -- to this and other articles about artists and organizations of questionable notability. As edits I have made related to WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:N and other Wikipedia policy and guidelines have been reverted, I have started discussions here and on other related talk pages to discuss the future edits and existence of these articles. Flowanda | Talk 05:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011 edits[edit]

Poorly sourced content has again been removed per WP:BLP. Please discuss here or at WP:BLPN. Flowanda | Talk 07:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lee Isaacs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lee_Isaacs&oldid=1195435026"