Draft talk:Alexander J. Stark

sourcing issues

While by number, a good number of sources are present, bulk of the article is fleshed out based on San Francisco Bay Area Post Card Club's monthly newsletter. Graywalls (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I have removed all references to San Francisco Bay Area Post Card Club newsletter. Found a good source here by Jack Eisen. It is too bad the postcard newsletter article by Frank Sternad could not be used as it has additional information, which I had to remove. However, I understand your point that newsletters, in general, are considered self-published. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Greghenderson2006:, aware me why you felt it was even appropriate to use it in the first place after all those things you've been corrected on. Graywalls (talk) 00:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Notability Tag - Alexander J. Stark

@Graywalls: I disagree with you placing a notability tag on this draft article. Based on Template:Notability, this tag can be removed if there is enough in-depth, independent sources have been published about the subject to overcome any notability issues. Please review the list of good sources to the article and provide your thoughts? Below are reasons I think Draft:Alexander J. Stark is notable under WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV:

1. Robert Bogdan and Todd Weseloh wrote a independent biography of Stark in their book: Real Photo Postcard Guide, which describes Stark and his large collection photo postcards that cover the Western United States.
2. Stanford University maintains the Zan Stark collection, which includes an independent biography and description of his collection.
3. Jack Eisen of the San Rafael Daily Independent Journal wrote an reliable article about Stark and his postcard business.
4. The Monterey County Historical Society has a Stark biography and a Zan Stark collection 879 postcards.

References

Greg Henderson (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of sources

@Graywalls: I don't understand why you have deleted sources like: "The Zan Stark collection is accessible through digital archives such as those maintained by the Stanford University's manuscripts division."

• To show significant coverage WP:GNG, I think it is important to describe the collection of Stark's work that is available online. The OAC citation includes a Zan Stark biography and listings of his work. The Stanford University's collection is where this collection has been made available for anyone to see, along with a biography.
• Based on WP:LEAD, a lead section is a summary of its most important contents. The Zan Stark collection represents a "body of work" that comprises over 3,000 photo postcards and photographic negatives that focus on Northern California from the period 1935-1955.
• Please help me understand your reasoning to remove the reference to the Stanford University online collection?

References

Greg Henderson (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Because, WP:NOTGUIDE. For the same reason I would delete something like so and so collab product between artist and brand is available at your local Best Buy" in a page about person or product regardless of sourcing. Library catalog is NOT a source. It's a directory. Didn't Netherzone explain this to you at one point? Graywalls (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Based on "WP:NOTGUIDE Wikipedia is not a dictionary," does not apply here. We are talking about a collection that is held at a University, which includes a biography of the subject and the contents of the collection. This collectioin is posted on Online Archive of California OAC and provides the contact to Contact Stanford University::Manuscripts Division. It seems within the WP:GNG guidelines to includes this as an important reference to show notability. Greg Henderson (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Greg is WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Netherzone (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Greg, WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTDICTIONARY are two quite different things, and not seeing that is a problem. You are editorialising and telling readers where they can access something. Not ok. Melcous (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. I don't think we are talking about a guide or dictionary. The Stanford citation is a WP:RS that provides the actual source for the Zan Stark collection, circa 1935-1955, which is cited in the Online Archive of California (OAC) reference.

Stark is notable per WP:PHOTOGRAPHER as his work has been represented within several permanent online collections, including at Stanford University, Marin County Free Library, Sonoma County Library, and the Monterey County Historical Society.

The Zan Stark collections represent a "body of work" that comprises over 3,000 real photo postcards and photographic negatives from the studio of Alexander "Zan" Stark. The postcards and photographs focus on Northern California, circa 1935-1955, and depict scenes of nature, travel destinations including vacation & historical attractions, architecture, bridges, and various street & cityscapes.

Per WP:GNG, the article has received significant coverage in reliable sources, that addresses the topic directly and in detail. The article includes secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Greg Henderson (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@Melcous: Do you find it reasonable to say "his work can be found at..." and listing out locations and citing the collection as a reference? I believe it isn't for the reason I expressed in edit summary here. The disagreement also happened at Special:Diff/1223850177. I feel it's rather advertorial and appears to guide people to where they can go to look at his stuff like listing out store locations at where a certain product can be purchased and linking to product page at each retailer. Graywalls (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Just to recap, I think it is important to point out that there are collections of his work that should be included in the article, either in the lead, body, or legacy sections; or as external links. Listing the name and providing links to these collections offers valuable and reliable information pertinent to the subject Greg Henderson (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Graywalls: I think there are a couple of different issues here. First, it seems to me the most standard and neutral way of phrasing something like this is "His work is in the collection at x institution" rather than anything like "can be found at" or "is accessible through" which to me is editorialising by directing readers to the reference rather than simply stating the relevant facts. But that brings up the second issue of relevance/notability. Part a, is the institution worthy of mention? (E.g. If the collection was my personal one and the link was to my personal website, I wouldn't think it belongs in wikipedia.) Part b, is the work collected for its own merit? If an artist's work is an an art collection, that is usually worth inclusion. However, the question here seems to be are his photographs in collections because those institutions are collecting his work, or are they in collections because institutions are collecting data about another person/subject and he is simply the photographer/recorder/archivist of that data? That to me is a key distinction. So if a collection has a wide range of his photos as a collection of his work, great; if they have one or two of his photos in a collection that is about the subject of his photos, then that is quite another thing. Melcous (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Melcous: So, in my latest edit, I put back in a local library collection that is actually a collection under the photographer's name, removed personal sites and left out search result link I removed in the prior edit. What ya think? Graywalls (talk) 01:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Note, the lead nor the death/legacy says: "His work is in the collection at the Stanford University library (here)." Based on what Melcous is saying, if the subject's work is in a collection, then that is worth inclusion. Greg Henderson (talk) 02:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Graywalls: @Melcous: So, can we say "His work is in the Zan Stark collection at Stanford University" ???

References

Greg Henderson (talk) 01:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

That sentence in itself is neutrally worded, so no issues with WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The question remains why the photographs are in the collection. From my read, it appears to be because of what they depict. So perhaps better would be something like "Stanford University has a collection of his photographs of Northern California". The notes says his work was promotional, so they have not collected the photos because of artistic merit of his work, but rather for historical purposes of what they document - which again raises notability questions. Melcous (talk) 04:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was trying to say re: Josselyn's work in "collections". The question remains why the photographs are in the collection. From my read, it appears to be because of what they depict. He (Josselyn) was a commercial photographer, not a fine art photographer, therefore, the photos were not collected the photos because of artistic merit of his work, but rather for historical purposes of what they document - which again raises notability questions. @Melcous is correct about this. Netherzone (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies, I really do appreciate it. I'll update the article based on what Melcous has said is safe to say. To the point of promotional, Stark sold his postcards for a nickel, using them as promotional tools to highlight roadside attractions, hotels, resorts & restaurants, and natural wonders such as Yosemite and the redwoods. At the same time notable, because his postcards represent a body of work that provide historical insights into California's past. The secondary sources cited in the article should meet the notability criteria. It is a fascinating success story as represented by Jack Eisen here! Greg Henderson (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Greghenderson2006, what notability criteria are you referring to when you say his postcards represent a body of work that provide historical insights into California's past? WP:NCREATIVE uses the language of "body of work" in a significantly different way, and are talking about a body of creative work that is notable for its own sake as such, not merely for historical purposes. This is the key question that needs to be resolved before working further on this and the Josselyn draft. Melcous (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

As a creative professional and for WP:PHOTOGRAPHER, Stark's body of work is notable in its own right as a valuable part of Northern California's history from 1935 to 1955. Secondary sources support his notability, and Stanford University, as well as other institutions, house collections of his photographs. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

And again, you asserting this does not make it so, and this would seem to be a misinterpretation of WP:PHOTOGRAPHER, which says nothing about anything being "a valuable part of history". The criteria is whether his body of work is "well known" or "significant" and is the subject of either multiple reviews of it as a body of work or a book/film/TV series. None of that appears to be met here. Melcous (talk) 08:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Let's try this another way. Based on Wikipedia:Notability (people), for WP:BASIC says "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Below is such coverage:

• Jack Eisen writes a multipage article about Stark's postcards that became known under the name Zan of Tamalpais.
• Stanford University has published reliable coverage of the Stark collection and his photographic postcards of Northern California.
• The Online Archieve of California has a collection guide that contains information about the Zan Collection and biography.
• Robert Weseloh has a biography of Alexander J. Stark saying he produced thousands of postcards.
• A large collection of his postcards are available at the Path Hathaway collection, which contain biographical information as wll as examples of his work here
• The University of California here, is working with contributor insitutions like the Marin County Free Library to provide significant coverage about Zan Stark and his Real photo postcard collection, that documents much of California here

References

Greg Henderson (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)