Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis Josselyn

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Josselyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Bringing this to AfD as one of a large walled garden of early Carmel-by-the-Sea residents. Sources all seem very local, and are generally brief mentions (or just photo credits) of the subject - not seeing how WP:NBIO is met. Melcous (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Typically fluffy contribution and, indeed, part of a walled garden. I looked at the sourcing: it's too skinny. Besides an obituary, there's nothing specifically about him; the rest of the sourcing are captions and more or less incidental mentions. It's a shame, cause I'm all about local historians and whatnot, but this one does not meet the GNG. Oh, please note the history, to see a section that was basically a kind of resume. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DrmiesIs this just a comment of did you mean to place a !vote too? Graywalls (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Graywalls, I think it will be obvious to the closing administrator where I'm going with this, but if you need my vote, it's "delete", of course. Drmies (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      I would hope, but the discussion is starting to drag on, so for simplicity sake at the end when quantity could matter, it could be useful to have to have the bold !vote. Graywalls (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This article is indeed part of a large walled garden of articles, that not only focus on Carmel/Pebble Beach/Monterey Peninsula; but also relate to the Henderson/Ford extended family in some way. The article creator has created many articles that involve his family, and their homes, businesses, friends and and other affairs. The connection in this article was that Lewis Josselyn was a "close friend" of Byington Ford, a relative of the creator. These articles are frequently referenced to hyper-local sources and primary sources, or the sources simply mention their name. Additionally and even more concerning, is that the content of these articles often does not match what the sources actually say, they are embellished with exaggerations, here-say, original research and puffery. The photographer who is the subject of this article is run of the mill, one of hundreds if not thousands of local photographers in California. After clean up, basically what we are left with is: he was born, got married, had a job as a commercial photographer, he died and his wife donated his photos to various local places. That he owned camera equipment and made photographs does not make him inherently notable; that his photos were sometimes published along with a "photo credit" does not confer notability. The article fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Netherzone Netherzone 15:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - I authored this article independently, but do not have any familial or personal connections to Josselyn. My interest lies in the exploration of topics related to Monterey County, California, a region where I spent my formative years.
• Lewis Josselyn's life and work have garnered extensive attention in both primary and secondary sources. If you're interested in delving into the biography of a pioneering California photographer known for his early contributions to Monochrome photography, this is a must-read. Josselyn had close associations with the artist Jo Mora and held the prestigious position of the official photographer for the Forest Theater. His lens captured iconic figures such as Robinson Jeffers and documented the restoration efforts at the Carmel Mission, also known as the Mission San Carlos Borromeo de Carmelo. Note that some of the content you currently see in the article has been removed by individuals known as Netherzone and Melcous. To access the previous version, please revert to this iteration.
• Best known for his historic record in photography for central and northern California, including California Missions, Yosemite, the redwoods, life in Carmel and the Monterey Bay area, and the building of Highway 1 along the Big Sur coast--including the construction of Bixby Creek Bridge ^[1]
• Has a collective body of work in the mid 1920s to the mid 1940s that served as fundamental points of reference for artist Jo Mora and his Pebble Beach studio recreated in the Jo Mora Collection at the Monterey History Art Association.^[2]
• Lewis Josselyn's legacy is well-documented, with a substantial presence in various media outlets and archives:
• His work has been cited in 21 newspaper articles, including mentions in The Californian and the Carmel Pine Cone.
• A collection of 277 images by Josselyn can be found on California Revealed, among other repositories.
• Tom Leyde, the author, credited Josselyn for contributing two historical photographs, one of the Carmel Mission and the other of Robinson Jeffers' Hawk Tower. Notably, Josselyn's widow generously entrusted 3,000 negatives to Pat Hathaway, a local photographer, as detailed in the statement: "Hathaway’s archive got its start in 1970 when he acquired a collection of photos from the widow of the late local photographer Lewis Josselyn."
• Josselyn's extensive collection stands as a valuable resource, offering invaluable insights to historians, scholars, writers, journalists, reporters, teachers, and students alike.
• His photographs have been featured in numerous books, including Cannery Row and Big Sur.
• He is in the esteemed company of photographers from the Monterey Peninsula, including luminaries such as Ansel Adams and Edward Weston.

Greg Henderson (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, why did you modify my signature to unlink my talk page? Netherzone (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Theatre, Photography, and California. Skynxnex (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Source Analysis - 1: Not SIGCOV[1] Published letters by a different person, source has two sentences on Josselyn, one mentions that he's a photographer; the second sentence states: I cannot get the [photo] negative of the reproduction without difficulty – the man who did it – Lewis Josselyn – (French family living here in Carmel) is a bit eccentric and would think I didn't like his work and so on or wonder wheter I wanted to have his negative criticized. 2. Not SIGCOV [2] three photo-credits. 3. Obituary in small, hyper-local weekly newspaper.[3] (probably submitted by family, The Carmel Pinecone states where to send obituaries) - standard obit content, he was born, married, had a photography job, died. 4. Not SIGCOV[4] four photo credits. 5. Not SIGCOV[5] one photo credit in small regional paper. 6. Not SIGCOV. [6] one photo credit. 7. Not SIGCOV[7] Article is on another person; one photo credit. 8. Not SIGCOV[8] A brief unattributed opinion/quote in a small, hyper-local weekly newspaper. 9. Not SIGCOV[9] name check only. Hyper local, small weekly paper. 10. Not SIGCOV. [10] two sentences about his work in a local show that his widow provided photographs. 11. Not SIGCOV[11] article is about another person; there is one sentence mentioning Josselyn. Therefore does not meet WP:GNG either. Netherzone (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - how are the principles of WHYN addressed by deletion? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:09, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The source for death date is the Carmel Pine Cone. Looking at the date of the digitized page I see 1963, yet the record states 1964. No exact birth or death dates are given in the obituary.--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Birth and Death dates are fixed in the Request Edits on the article's Talk:Lewis Josselyn page. Please see all Request Edits before deleting this article. Greg Henderson (talk) 03:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree with Netherzone's source analysis showing there is insufficient evidence of notability. I've also reviewed the requested edits on the article talk page, and even if they were all added to the article, the subject of the article still fails each the four unique notability criteria of WP:PHOTOGRAPHER. On a side note, I also found a Find-a-Grave listing confirming his 1964 death, and his burial at Golden Gate National Cemetery, but that is a moot point for our purposes, since the subject does not meet notability criteria. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I noticed a peculiar thing....the Find a Grave listing is a perfect example of why we should not be using any user-submitted content like Find a Grave. The article Lewis Josselyn and Find A Grave both list his death date as March 14, 1964.[12]

  However, his obituary which was printed in the Carmel Pine Cone clearly shows the date of the newspaper itself as March 19, 1963. (look at the upper right hand corner of page 16, on the print copy of the newspaper, not what Internet archive states as the "publication date", which is probably a human error.)[13] How could there be an obit for his death from 1963 if he didn't die until 1964? Unless he time traveled. ;-)

  Also upon examining the photo of the grave stone itself on the Find a Grave listing, it shows his death date as 1961, two years before the obituary, and three years before the FInd A Grave text entry for his death date. It is possible that he died in 1961, but the obituary was not published by the Carmel Pine Cone until 1963 (possibly submitted by his family as an afterthought?) Either way we should not be using Ancestry.com, FamilySearch.com, Find-a-Grave, or other similar genealogy sites as reliable sources. They are fine for family memorial content, but they are not up to snuff for the encyclopedia.

  None of this has an effect on his notability or lack thereof, but rather that there is very little known of him, the primary sources are not accurate, and it's far too nebulous to state in the article what year he died. If he was an important artist there would be multiple reviews in art magazines, notable museum shows, an obit in a larger paper like the San Francisco Chronicle, and what we would normally find for a notable photographer. To compare him to Ansel Adams or Edward Weston has no merit. Netherzone (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I am beginning to wonder if there were more than one Lewis Josselyn, and that the article, as well as some of the user-submitted ancestry sites have inadvertently mixed the two up? Just a thot..... Netherzone (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, you are correct, in error I missed the gravestone photo's listing his death in 1861. Also, his wife's name on the gravestone is "Augustine", not Jeane. So I think your thought that there is more than one Lewis Josely is correct, and the submission at Find-a-Gravehas mixed two different people. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is exactly why Wikipedia editors should not interpret primary source on their own. Graywalls (talk) 03:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  But in this instance, the secondary source is also problematic. It has two different dates:1963 is the year in the heading on pp.2-16, but the front page headers gives the date as March 19, 1964. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it is pretty obvious that the date is March 19, 1964 as provided in (a) first published page, and (b) the publishing date of the Pine Cone article. The date is also verifiable based on the date of death, which is published on the California Death Index (source already provided on Talk page via government records). Greg Henderson (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article creator has numerous edit requests in talk page. Not that I think they really help, but just a FYI. I think we should just be aware, but not implement the ERs until AfD is wrapped up in order to not waste time so. Graywalls (talk) 03:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Notability is the condicio sine qua non, in the absence of which, additions or corrections would be a waste of time. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Based on the above, the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines state that:

• • "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field:" In this case, Lewis Josselyn is widely recognized with the eduring historical record in field of photography for the nationally recognized Forest Theater.^[3]
  • In addition, according to the guidelines "The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary:" Accordingly, Lewis Josselyn is listed in the Biographies of Carmel and Berkeley Artists here. Based on the above, he is can be presumed notable. Greg Henderson (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I cannot imagine upon what basis you consider a biography of Carmel and Berkeley artists to be a "country's standard national" biography. Seriously? It's hard not to consider claiming so an insult to our intelligence. Ravenswing 22:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      I have included two criteria, his widely recognized contribution to photography. And the 2nd criteria based on the life and writing of Jennie V. Cannon, one of California’s more important female artists and on contemporary sources from the first half of the 20th century. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      That is not an answer to my statement. You claim that the Biographies of Carmel and Berkeley Artists constitute an an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary. Defend it or retract it. (What Cannon has to do with anything, I can neither see, nor have you explained the same.) Ravenswing 23:43, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      The book, Jennie V. Cannon: The Untold History of the Carmel and Berkeley Art Colonies, Vol. 1, has detailed biographical information, not only about Lewis Josselyn, but about more than 200 other artists. Therefore, it considered a standard biographical WP:RS resource with WP:BASIC information. This biography is a published secondary source that is reliable, and independent of the subject. Greg Henderson (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, that is not a Dictionary of National Biography, that is a small regional compendium. There is a huge difference. Also, the fact that his widow donated his photos to a local library and a local private collection is not the same as having his work curated into a notable museum or national gallery collection - collections that are vetted by a curatorially trained art historians and by the museum's acquisitions board. Sorry. Netherzone (talk) 00:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You will, perhaps, forgive us for having some healthy skepticism over your assertions regarding proper sourcing, given the numerous COI and sourcing issues that led to your current indefinite block from editing in articlespace ... your connections to the subject of this AfD included. Ravenswing 01:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Photography, Military, California, and Massachusetts. Graywalls (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Netherzone's analysis is persuasive. I commend to the keep proponents WP:SIGCOV, which restricts the applicability of sources as reliable to those providing "significant coverage to the subject." Namedrops are not sigcov.
  Beyond that, people claiming that the subject meets the "widely recognized contribution" criterion are ignoring the explanatory note, which holds "Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books in that field, by historians." No such coverage has been asserted or demonstrated. Photo captions are not sigcov. Ten photo captions just end up as 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0=0. Ravenswing 22:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm gonna say "keep". Even though most of the sources cited are California sources, Josselyn's work was published in quite a few books that are cited in the article and in the article's Talk page edit requests, and his photographs form the core of an important historical photo collection. BTW, an even more notable person is Pat Hathaway, who is cited in 18 Wikipedia articles so far. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was able to locate some of his photos published in a book about Carmel-by-the-Sea rather than artistic merit. Sometimes, it's about having having free photos, or affordable accessible photos. A great deal of Wikipedia editors are published photographers, under their Commons name. Why? Because magazines, newspapers, authors are writing about something and they're looking for photos that works out for their story and pretty much any relevant photos they can casually use will do, and per CC-BY-SA licensing, photographers get credited. This doesn't make them "notable published photographers". Graywalls (talk) 23:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Josselyn has a collective body of work in the mid 1920s to the mid 1940s with artist Jo Mora that served as fundamental points of reference for artist Jo Mora and his Pebble Beach studio recreated in the [Monterey History & Art Association Jo Mora exhibit https://www.mayohayeslibrary.org/uploads/2/5/3/9/25392173/vol_52_num_3_fall_2009.pdf]. He is also best known for his historic record in Collection of Historical Photographs photography for central and northern California. Greg Henderson (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to show that this photographer is notable. Posting a huge wall of comments isn't going to help keep this article if those comments are along the lines of "He is in the esteemed company of photographers from the Monterey Peninsula, including luminaries such as Ansel Adams and Edward Weston." Notability is not inherited by living on the same peninsula. Elspea756 (talk) 23:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:AMOUNT comes to mind. Graywalls (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Josselyn has significant coverage in reliable sources here, and here, Photographs by Lewis Josselyn and here. Greg Henderson (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - James Perry, Executive Director of the Monterey County Historical Society, is curator of the Pat Hathaway collection of historical photos. He is excited about the recent 2021 gift from the Pat Hathaway collection that incldues the Lewis Josselyn's photos.^[1] Sheila Sobell of the Dialy Record wrote the article, Saving a Glimpse Of Old California and talks about Josselyn, who had come to the Monterey area in 1914, had some 5,000 5-by-7 negatives documenting its history. Included were images of Carmel Mission (and all other California Missions); the construction of Bixby Creek Bridge in 1932; Highway 1 along the Big Sur coast; and famous Carmel poet Robinson Jeffers, taken in 1929. Sobell goes on to quote Hathaway, "Photographers are the keepers of our history, but they seldom get acknowledgment."^[2] Greg Henderson (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  okay..? and... ? Graywalls (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  For WP:BASIC, Josselyn has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources including numerous books, magazines, and newspapers regarding his historical photographs. For WP:ANYBIO Josselyn has been a recognized major contributor that is part of the enduring historical record in the field of photography (see above citations). Greg Henderson (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is where you lose me - someone who took photographs at a particular time, that were then later realised to be of local historical value, is a far stretch from someone who is a "recognised major contributor ... in the field of photography." That would require evidence from well outside his local neighbourhood to substantiate and I'm not seeing it. Melcous (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The first source below doesn't even mention Josselyn. The second source does, but again its major focus is Hathaway. I'm not sure these count as more than local coverage, but even if they do, that would be for Hathaway, not Josselyn. Melcous (talk) 23:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The two citations point to Josselyn's contribution to Monterey County Historical Society via Pat Hathaway. Josselyn is listed in the Biographies of Carmel and Berkeley Artists in in Jennie V. Cannon's The Untold History of the Carmel and Berkeley Art Colonies." Her published art reviews appeared for decades in regional newspapers and her recognition of Josselyn is reliably covered as part of this review. Why would you want to delete a historical photographer? Have you even seen his works? They are amazing!^[3] Greg Henderson (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Erm. We do not have Wikipedia articles based on how "amazing" someone's pictures are. We have Wikipedia articles based on whether subjects meet the requirements of the GNG that they have "significant coverage" in reliable sources. We do get that you're a hardcore fan of this photographer's works, but that doesn't translate to him being notable. Ravenswing 02:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:BASIC - Presumed notable if published in secondary sources:

  • Josselyn is covered in the Biographies of Carmel and Berkeley Artists in in Jennie V. Cannon's The Untold History of the Carmel and Berkeley Art Colonies."^[4]
  • The Monterey History Art Association's collection, curated by Jo Mora, encompasses Josselyn's photographs spanning from the mid-1920s to the mid-1940s. During these two decades, Josselyn, a close family friend, documented the Moras, resulting in a substantial portion of Mora's artwork being preserved through his lens. Photographs within the collection feature Mora's Pebble Beach studio, the commemorative half-dollar created to mark the 75th anniversary of California statehood, and scenes from the Abalone League Theater.^[5]
  • He was the official photographer for the Forest Theater, a historic amphitheater in Carmel.^{[6]: p26 [7]}
  • He is listed as a America's Distinguished Artists, a national registry of historic artists.^[8]

  Greg Henderson (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That "America's Distinguished Artists" website just contains a link to the same Jennie V. Cannon local directory of Carmel artists that you have cited again and again to prove he meets BASIC. He does not, and that local directory is not the same as a National Dictionary of Biography. Anyone can send the ADA Website text or images to include. The fine print disclaimer found at the bottom of each "page" of the website does not provide a lot of confidence in the source: Links to sources of information outside of our web site are provided only as referrals for your further consideration. Please use due diligence in judging the quality of information contained in these and all other web sites. Information from linked sources may be inaccurate or out of date. TFAO neither recommends or endorses these referenced organizations. Although TFAO includes links to other web sites, it takes no responsibility for the content or information contained on those other sites, nor exerts any editorial or other control over them.. It's not a reliable source. Netherzone (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The above link "Jennie V. Cannon: The Untold History of the Carmel and Berkeley Art Colonies" is used as a citation for about 106 Wikipedia articles. Looks like a WP:RS to me:

  The Untold History of the Carmel and Berkeley Art Colonies. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Even if this bio did meet WP:BASIC, the requirement for creative professionals, inclucing WP:PHOTOGRAPHER, specifies, Such a person is notable if:

  1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or
  2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or
  3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); or
  4. The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

  No criterion above is met by this subject. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Meeting WP:BASIC means presumed notable.

  WP:PHOTOGRAPHER is easy!

  • Important figure  Done Josselyn is known as an important figure in the area of photography for California missions, buildings, people, and the official photographer for the Forest Theater. He is listed in a biography for Carmel and Berkeley Art Colonies.^[9][10][11]
  • Significant or well-known work or collective body of work  Done See Hathaway Photo Collection, and California Revealed.^[12][13]
  • Permanent collection  Done Josselyn's work can be found in the collections of the San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park, the Monterey Peninsula Museum of Art, and the Hathaway Photo Collection.^[14][15]

  Greg Henderson (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Greg, just because you say a guideline is fulfilled by saying it is "Done" does not make it so. As someone who has edited in the Visual arts area for a decade, I can comfortably say you are misinterpreting this SNG guideline by a long shot.

  •  Not done An important figure in photography is someone like Ansel Adams who has had hundreds of exhibitions in notable museums, is the subject of multiple monographs, hundreds of reviews, he invented the Zone System, he won a Presidential Award of Freedom. Sales of his original prints go for $600,000 at auction, whereas Josselyn's widow had to give away Josselyn's prints. His (Adam's) work is taught in universities around the world. Adams is a house-hold name, and his photographs of California are known around the world. THAT is what an important figure in photography is; Josselyn's career doesn't even come close to that at all. That he is listed in a regional directory of artists has no merit, it is NOT a Dictionary of National Biography.

  •  Not done Just because a photographer's work is mentioned in a book about Carmel, California does not make it a "significant or well known work or collective body of work." There is ZERO critical or art historical scholarship about his work; just because he had a job photographing a local theater in Carmel does not mean it's an important body of work. Edweard Muybridge created a significant well known body of work; Timothy O'Sullivan created a significant and well known body of work. Josselyn did not. Your saying "but he did, he did" does not make it so.

  •  Not done The Hathaway Photo Collection is a regional person's private collection, many of the photographs - in particular Josselyn's - were donated. It is NOT the same as a curated museum or national gallery collection. Nor is it important like the collection of the International Center of Photography, or the Museum of Modern Art's photo collection or the Center for Creative Photography collection. The only reason why the Hathaway collection appears in searches on WP is because of photo credits, not because the collection itself is notable. Josselyn's work isn't even in the collections of the San Francisco Museum of Art, nor the Legion of Honor in San Francisco, nor the DeYoung Museum all if which are only a few miles North of Carmel. Why do you think that is? His work is in 3 local collections: one is a park, the second is a local museum in the neighboring town where a person donated the print (according to the museum's object notes), it was not acquired through a normal curatorial process, and the third one is the Hathaway collection where his widow donated his work.

  Does he pass WP:PHOTOGRAPHER? No. Does he pass WP:BASIC? No. Does he pass WP:GNG? No. Netherzone (talk) 02:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Given discussion and verifiable information, this subject meets WP:PHOTOGRAPHER.1, 4b, 4c, and 4d (for 4d, in addition to above, seems to be featured in permanent collection of Art, Design & Architecture Museum). It also looks possible that WP:BASIC will be met, but still, this is a good example of a case where GNG could fail our readers. —siroχo 00:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Siroxo, could you please add a link to where he seems to be featured in permanent collection of Art, Design & Architecture Museum? They have a searchable online collection and when I search the entire collection for his name I come up with "Your search yielded no results". When I do an advanced search of just their Photography collection, I come up with "zero totals" meaning he's not in it. Even if he were, the museum is a small university gallery in the town of Goleta, California. Netherzone (talk) 04:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Here's what I found[14] —siroχo 04:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that a single photo does not meet any part of WP:PHOTOGRAPHER, criterion 4, which says, "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 05:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Siroxo, thank you for taking the time to look for that. Here is the thing....the record is in the AD&AM (not a notable collection) but if you scroll down, the source clearly says it's actually in the collection of the Santa Barbara Community Arts Association, definitely not a notable collection per WP criteria. Netherzone (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Let me help out:

  • 3,800 images in the Lewis Josselyn collection at The Pat Hathaway Photo Collection, acquired in 2021 by the Monterey County Historical Library.
  • Represented at the Monterey Museum of Art
  • Josselyn pictures of the Paul Flanders Mansion, now poart of the San Francisco National Historical Park
  • Collection from the California Revealed
  • Significant Josselyn photographic collection at the Harrison Memorial Library (Carmel Public Library)

  Greg Henderson (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Greg Henderson, I appreciate your efforts to help. In the list of sources above, howere, 4 out of 5 are photos available at local libraries, and the 13 "picturs of the Paul Flanders Mansion" appear in an application for the mantson's National Register of Historic Places Registration form. None of these sources qualify as either a significant monument, a substantial part of a significant exhibition, covered by significant critical attention, or in notable galleries or museums. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think we are reaching consensus here. We have several keeps and several deletes. Although his name may not be as familiar as figures like Ansel Adams, Dorothea Lange, or Mathew Brady. Josselyn's notability is more regionally focused, with his work holding historical and artistic significance in the context of the Western United States. His legacy is more pronounced based on the historical importance of his images. His 3,800 images in the Lewis Josselyn collection at The Pat Hathaway Photo Collection, acquired in 2021 by the Monterey County Historical Library is significant. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We don't require unanimous agreement. AfD consensus won't be read by involved parties in discussion for a good reason. Graywalls (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NYC Guru (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question was this NON-ADMIN relist above at 7 days and two hours appropriate? Guidelines say it's supposed to run for 168 hours and admins obviously can't get to it immediately, so I feel a non-admin jumping-in and relisting mere two hours past the required duration is unduly hastily non-admin action. Can't say I've encountered this before. Graywalls (talk) 01:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is not something I can say I've ever seen people other than admins doing. Pilaz (talk) 01:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems odd to me as well, esp. since it is a fairly new editor with a low edit count who has even closed deletion discussions that were "close calls", which is not really best practice for a non-admin. Netherzone (talk) 02:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And the user who did this closure had taken it upon themselves to administer at least two AfDs prior to having been listed for the required 168 hour. If it is seen as an acceptable practice for non-admins to relist what they feel in their personal opinion as a close call and wants to buy more time, they'd stand aside and relist at 168 hours and one minute before there's a chance for an admin to render a reading. Graywalls (talk) 02:15, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind that beyond anything else, let's review. Greghenderson2006's filibustering aside, he's under a current indefinite TBAN from editing articlespace due to an inability to stay clear where there's a COI: something we've seen in spades here. (A look at his talk page also reveals that before the block, he had already had his autopatrolled right pulled, and there are multiple questions about him playing fast and loose with sourcing.) Any reasonable closer would discount his arguments at the least, and that leaves a strong consensus of eight editors advocating deletion against two advocating keeping. This is one of the more egregious "what the pluperfect hell?" relistings I've ever seen, and it should be promptly overturned. Ravenswing 02:47, 10 September 2023 (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.