Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Rickdoble

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Rickdoble (talk · contribs)

I am sorry, but vitae resumes, online articles that you yourself have posted links to social networks like facebook, links to books published by yourself on Amazon (his is relatively easy to do by anyone, just sold and mostly with negative feedback), all that can not be used as evidence of importance . If you were really a major artist would not need you to defend yourself, especially by publishing a list of spam links made for yourself. It is amazing the time you have spent in doing your own advertising on different portals and social networks, however, commons is not a good place for selftpromotion.

In addition, low quality image (blured, motion blur, oversatured, out of focus), personal experiment only used in one of your subpages commons. A selfpublication of a not important book in Amazon is really easy. I agree with the few comments received your book, mostly negative. like the first comment of your book in Amazon. It is likely to become the next Picazzo, however, until that happens, this should be deleted. I am sorry --The Photographer

The Photographer (talk) 12:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

KEEP
OVERVIEW:
(For a detailed rebuttal of each point Rodríguez asserted see the numbered # paragraphs below): Virtually all of the work Rodríguez wants to delete is deliberately experimental and carefully put together -- which is clearly noted on the commons.wikimedia pages. Many of these photographs are considered some of the best experimental work today (see list at the end of this response). Many of the photographs were taken at very slow shutter speeds and many involve motion -- all of which is deliberately recorded as blur. If commons.wikimedia deletes photographs such as these which deliberately contain motion blur, then it is subscribing to a quite narrow definition of photography that excludes deliberate and carefully constructed experimental work. The work I posted here was made over about 15 years, many of it published in a book by a major photography publisher, my third book on digital photography -- none of which were self published (see below). Other work Rodríguez tagged for deletion has been displayed in major university art galleries and contemporary art conferences or reviewed by a major publication.
Whether a reviewer likes or does not like the work is not the point. The point is that these are experimental works from a leading artist who works with experimental digital photography and has done so for about 15 years. These are not low quality, poorly focused photographs instead I believe my works on commons.wikimedia are some of the best examples of experimental digital photography. Experimental digital photography needs to be judged differently from a traditional photograph, as blur and motion and other effects which were often thought to be 'bad photography' are used in experimental photography for artistic and expressive purposes.
How can I say that I am a leading artist who works with experimental digital photography? Do a Google search for "experimental digital photography" and I normally come up at or near the top, along with several other results in the top 10. Do a search on commons.wikimedia for "experimental digital photography" and my page comes up.
You might also want to check out my resume going back more than 40 years at:
https://independent.academia.edu/RickDoble/CurriculumVitae

EDUCATIONAL VALUE OF THESE EXPERIMENTAL DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHS
As for their educational value -- there are a number of courses in high schools and colleges today that are called experimental digital photography or that use my book Experimental Digital Photography for the course. My reason for uploading these photographs to commons.wikimedia was to make my work available for public use for students, teachers and artists. A number of the photographs tagged for deletion by Rodríguez are from my book Experimental Digital Photography. Here are a list of college libraries where my book can be found and also courses that are now being taught on the subject of experimental digital photography.
== Over 40 college and university libraries have a copy of my book -- see the listings at this URL:
https://www.worldcat.org/title/experimental-digital-photography/oclc/311761036&referer=brief_results

Here are links to educational institutes with courses in experimental digital photography:
== Oldham College, Creative Arts (UK): Digital Photography Skills - In week 6 they concentrate on "Experimental Digital Photography- Long exposures" which is exactly what my experimental photographs here on commons.wikimedia involve
http://www.oldham.ac.uk/creativearts/Factsheet.aspx?id=2956&title=Digital%20Photography%20Skills%20Part%201%20Beginners
== Ocean County College (USA): Experimental Digital Photography course: COPH - 187
http://www.ocean.edu/content/public/study-on-campus/academics/college-catalog.html/courses/6591
== Peters Valley School of Craft (USA): Course - Experimental Digital Photography
http://www.petersvalley.org/store/html/product.cfm?id=421
== Faculty of Creative Arts at Colchester Institute (UK): Art and Design Degree; Experimental Digital Photography is listed under year 2
http://www.ukademics.com/course/art-and-design-fashion-textiles/university/colchester-institute
== Suffolk Country Community College: Course ART259: Experimental Digital Photography
http://depthome.sunysuffolk.edu/West/ArtsHumanities/Photographic%20Imaging%20Courses.html
== Kabul University in Kabul Afghanistan has held a seminar in ‘Experimental Digital Photography.’
See a reference to it at this URL.
http://beforeitsnews.com/fine-art/2012/10/masood-kamandy-2447772.html
== My book Experimental Digital Photography is listed as textbook, on Textbooks.com
http://www.textbooks.com/Experimental-Digital-Photography/9781600595172/Rick-Doble.php

HERE IS A REBUTTAL OF THE REASONS RODRÍGUEZ CITED FOR DELETION OF MY PHOTOGRAPHS

I am responding to the following deletion request by Wilfredo R. Rodríguez
"Low quality image (blured [.sic], motion blur, oversatured [.sic], out of focus), personal experiment. A selfpublication [.sic] of a not important book in Amazon is really easy. I agree with the few comments received your book, mostly negative. The first comment of your book in Amazon. It is likely to become the next Picazzo [.sic], however, until that happens, this should be deleted. I am sorry -- H.

This deletion request is an attack on the professionalism of my work. It is also an attack on me personally -- it is sarcastic and addresses itself to me personally -- which has no place in this kind of request. But since it has been made, I will respond to the various criticisms. And I ask for the patience of reviewers reading this -- as I feel I must go into detail to refute a number of things Rodríguez has said.

1. 1. Asserted: Low quality image

My response: These were uploaded at the highest original resolution possible. Since the work spans about 15 years of experimental work, some of the earlier work will be at lower resolutions since the cameras did not take photographs at higher resolutions.

1. 2. Asserted: Out of focus
   

My response: These are not out of focus. These are experimental digital photographs which involve motion. To a personal unfamiliar with motion blur, they may seem out of focus, but the focus is correct. The blur is due to intentional motion recorded in the picture -- see #3.

1. 3. Asserted: Blurred (Rodríguez misspelled as blured)
   

My response: Yes, these are blurred. They are experimental digital photographs using purely photographic techniques -- usually very slow handheld exposures at 2-20 seconds. So of course they are blurred. In most cases on commons.wikimedia, there is an EXIF file that details this.
BTW: If you think that deliberately blurred photos should be deleted, then you will need to also delete the work of Bragaglia 100 years ago who I was inspired by and whose photograph you have listed on commons.wikimedia. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bragaglia-violin.jpg

1. 4. Asserted: Motion blur
   

My response: See #3. Many of the subjects of this work are in motion, so again, naturally there is a motion blur aspect to them. Also motion blur, itself, is a category of photographs on commons.wikimedia

1. 4. Asserted: Personal experiment
   

My response: Not sure what the criticism is here. These are experimental photographs some of which are personal but which hopefully will inspire other students and artists to do their own personal experiments. The self portraits of Rembrandt which span his lifetime were personal but also great art; the same could be said about van Gogh's self portraits and Roger Bacon's. In addition some of the greatest art work of the 20th century such as cubism and abstract art could be called personal experiments. Self portraits and selfies are categories in commons.wikimedia

NOTE: A number of the photographs that Rodríguez has tagged for deletion have been shown in museums, symposiums, conferences, and on major websites. Please see the rather long list, at the end of this response to the deletion request by Rodríguez.

1. 5. Asserted: Self published book
   

My response: Calling my book Experimental Digital Photography "A selfpublication" is incorrect. Rodríguez jumped to conclusions which a reviewer should never do. This book is *NOT* self published. I was published by a major publisher of photography books, Pixiq in the Lark Photography Book series -- which is clearly listed on the Amazon site. (Pixiq used to be called Sterling Publishing and is now part of Barnes and Noble). Experimental Digital Photography (Pixiq, New York/London, 2010).
ALSO NOTE: I am the author of 3 books on digital photography *NONE OF WHICH WERE SELF PUBLISHED; THEY WERE PUBLISHED BY MAJOR PUBLISHERS*:
The Everything Digital Photography Book
http://www.amazon.com/Everything-Digital-Photography-Book-professional/dp/B002YX0BQE
Career Building Through Digital Photography -- a book for libraries
http://www.amazon.com/Career-Building-Through-Digital-Photography/dp/1404219412/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1412916697&sr=1-1&keywords=careers+in+digital+photography+rick+doble

1. 6. Asserted: Not important book
   

My response: Calling the book "not important" is a personal opinion which again has no place in a deletion request. He needs to check his facts.
The book sold out in its first printing.
My book is in over 240 libraries around the world, including New Zealand, Australia, Singapore and South Africa in addition to the United States.
Here is a listing of where my book is in libraries around the world:
There are 41 pages of listings with six libraries listed per page.
https://www.worldcat.org/title/experimental-digital-photography/oclc/311761036&referer=brief_results

I also have 1200+ followers on my Facebook page for my book Experimental Digital Photography
https://www.facebook.com/experimentaldigitalphotography.book.rick.doble

1. 7. Asserted: "A selfpublication of a not important book in Amazon is really easy."
   

Response: A comment like this is factually incorrect, personal and is not appropriate for a deletion request. Rodríguez has jumped to conclusions and not checked his facts. Amazon is only one bookseller where my book is listed; there are dozens of others around the world where my book is listed. As for "easy" the book was drawn from about 15 years of work and it took me nine solid months to write, edit, and proof it.
Here it is listed on Barnes and Noble:
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/experimental-digital-photography-rick-doble/1102180849?ean=9781600595172

1. 8. Asserted: Negative Comments on Amazon
   

My response: Rodríguez wrote, "I agree with the few comments received your book, mostly negative. The first comment of your book in Amazon." The comments Rodríguez refers to are amateur reader comments, some of which are quite complimentary, some are not. And even the negative 1-star review Rodríguez cites on Amazon contains this line, "If you're into colorful shiny things, this might be a good book for you..." Other readers gave this book 5 stars which Rodríguez ignored. Most importantly Rodríguez ignored the professional reviews on that same page on Amazon which are as follows: Professional Reviews verified by Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/Experimental-Digital-Photography-Lark-Book/dp/1600595170/ref=cm_rdp_product_img
== Outlines how to express yourself through experimental photography. I like the hands-on exercises - great way to experience the information and techniques taught through this book. Extremely well done! --thereviewsource.net -- review by Thomas Nelson
== Doble, a photographer for more than 40 years, throws out the rule book and teaches techniques that foster expressive, experimental images. ---- libraryjournal.com -- by Daniel Lombardo
== Filled with stunning images...the book is a feast for the eyes and so can be both read as a book and flicked through for inspiration at other times when you are feeling creatively constipated. Wayne Cosshall, Digital ImageMaker. --dimagemaker.com

1. 9. Asserted: "I agree with the few comments received your book, mostly negative. The first comment of your book in Amazon."
   

My response: Addressing me personally in a deletion request is inappropriate. He used the word 'your' twice.

1. 9. Asserted: "It is likely to become the next Picazzo [.sic], however, until that happens, this should be deleted. I am sorry "
   

My response: This is another personal opinion which has no place in a deletion request. Even so his logic is flawed. This sentence by him is a bit garbled but I think he means "He, Rick Doble, is likely to become the next Picasso, however until that happens, these photographs should be deleted." So I have to ask, if I am likely to become the next Picasso, why would you want to delete my work? -- and if you do delete my work, you are making it that much harder for me to become the next Picasso. Ending his comment with, "I am sorry," is also inappropriate. And BTW if my work is deleted, don't expect me to ever submit it to commons.wikimedia another time and go through this process again.

1. 10. I have a Masters Degree in Media from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1974. I have been a photographer for 40 years. I have put up some of my very best work to make it publicly available for students, teachers and artists, forgoing any money I could have made from these photographs. While people may not like my particular work, they should understand it is deliberate and carefully constructed which merits keeping the work on commons.wikimedia. I am hoping that commons.wikimedia will keep an open mind and realize that experimental photography needs to be looked at differently than traditional photography. And one way to judge its quality is to look at the experience and background of its creator.

You can see my full 6 page resume going back more than 40 years at:
https://independent.academia.edu/RickDoble/CurriculumVitae

1. 11. NOTE: As a contemporary photographic artist who some feel is significant, I put some of my best work on commons.wikimedia. I have forgone any money I could have made from those photographs, since they are now available for public use. I wanted students, teachers, artists to be inspired by them, to learn from them, to maybe reuse the work in some of their own work. I thought that commons.wikimedia would be open to experimental work and not hampered by a traditional view of photography when it came to experimental work.
   

So, unfortunately I must say the following: If *ANY* of my experimental photographs are deleted due to this deletion request, I will not put any more of my work up on commons.wikimedia. I was planning on adding new work as I created it. I also feel that deleting original work made by an artist who some feel is significant will send a chilling message to other artists who might be considering putting their work up on commons.wikimedia. And I will let such artists know about my experience here at commons.wikimedia and that their work may not be welcome here.

=========================================================
LIST OF EXHIBITS, CONFERENCES WHERE WORK TAGGED FOR DELETION HAS BEEN SHOWN PLUS INTERVIEWS WITH DOBLE ABOUT HIS EXPERIMENTAL WORK
Listed in Chronological Order from 1998-2012

== Many of the GIF animations listed for deletion were included on the Enculturation website in 1998 where I was the featured artist for this work
http://www.enculturation.net/2_1/toc.html
http://www.enculturation.net/2_1/doble/
My work was also reviewed as being quite remarkable by the Film-Philosophy Journal of London, UK
http://www.film-philosophy.com/vol3-1999/n15martin-jones

== File:01 - File:03 classical greek 4 elements air.gif
These were put on the French site DOC(K)S in 2000 and also these animations were included on a CD in their with their book. These animations are still online
http://www.akenaton-docks.fr/DOCKS-datas_f/collect_f/generiqueanim.html

== https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:01_self-portrait_early_experimental_digital_photography_by_Rick_Doble.jpg
This picture was shown at the 5th Photography Biennial Exhibit in 2007 in at the Gray Art Gallery, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC (USA) and included on a full page in the museum catalog

== My interview with NPR (National Public Radio) about my experimental work
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105371296

== Many of the picture listed for deletion were in the SCIENAR exhibit in Bucharest Romania in 2010 and then put together in the following PowerPoint show
Link to SCIENAR site: http://virtualimage.co.uk/SCIENAR/html/painting_in_light.html
Link to PPT PowerPoint File: http://virtualimage.co.uk/SCIENAR/html/lightppt.html

== This file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:9781600595172_a030.jpg
was used as the principle image for the poster for the SCIENAR exhibit in Bucharest Romania in 2010.
It is not unlike the Bragaglia 100 year old photograph mentioned earlier, that is on commons.wikimedia.
https://www.facebook.com/experimentaldigitalphotography.book.rick.doble/photos/a.111134282288829.11731.111124322289825/111134285622162/?type=3&theater

This is an interview with Art Digital Magazine, that has the largest collection of interviews with digital artists, about my experimental work with long shutter speeds
http://www.artdigitalmagazine.com/?p=2810

File:06 - File:10 camera painting motion blur experimental digital photography by Rick Doble.jpg
Photos from this series were shown at the Bridges Mathematical Art Galleries in 2012; two in a month long show at the Towson University Gallery in Baltimore, Maryland and one at the conference
http://gallery.bridgesmathart.org/exhibitions/2012-bridges-conference/rickdoble
--Rickdoble (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a reply to Wilfredo R. Rodríguez [User:The Photographer] in his latest comment:

Since you are addressing me directly as 'you', I will now address you directly.
In your original mass deletion nomination you referenced my book as self published, you said I only sold on Amazon, and my work was not important. So I have the right to respond to those accusations since that was part of your reason for deleting my work -- and you should know that.
What else can I use for evidence of importance if not exhibits, conferences, museum catalogs, reviews in prestigious journals going back 15 years. Do you honestly think that the quite positive review in Film-Philosophy Journal of London in 1999 was something I made up, for example? Do you honestly think that the 240 libraries worldwide today that carry my book and the 40 college libraries that carry my book are spam links?
https://www.worldcat.org/title/experimental-digital-photography/oclc/311761036&referer=brief_results

Are you saying that if I were a major artist and you decided to delete most of my work that I should say nothing?
You wrote, "If you were really a major artist [.sic] would not need you to defend yourself." My reply is that if you knew about the field of experimental digital photography you would know who I was, but clearly you don't know about this field.
Furthermore, all your accusations about self publishing -- with the books I listed in my reply to your mass deletion nomination -- are not substantiated and simply assumptions you have made, assumptions you have no right to make. You have no evidence because my books that I listed that are on Amazon were published by major publishing firms. If you cannot back up your accusations and provide evidence, you need to apologize. Otherwise you are quite unprofessional.--Rickdoble (talk) 06:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Response to those who have posted delete on this deletion nomination: My work here on Wikimedia is not Out of scope. As a teacher and educator myself, or course, I respect the purpose for which Wikimedia was created. I have clearly noted how my work has an educational purpose -- with 40+ college libraries (over 240 libraries worldwide) carrying my book, Experimental Digital Photography, and also a number of courses being offered with the name Experimental Digital Photography which is what my work is about -- so my work here has an educational purpose. As I stated in my response to this deletion nomination of over 100 of my files, I put them up there for students, teachers, schools and educators to use.
If you think it is okay for The Photographer to accuse me of making up links and self-publishing the 3 books I listed on Amazon about digital photography (which is untrue) without any verification -- then commons.wikimedia is not being fair and is not the place I thought it was. You instead should be asking him to verify his comments. Also he does not know the difference between focus and camera/subject movement. This is basic knowledge which any photographer should know. And both of these last statements are enough to disqualify him. And if you think that my reasoning is flawed, you must live in a different world than I do, a world where accuracy and fairness are not considerations.--71.48.15.92 01:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)--Rickdoble (talk) 01:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Apparently a decision has been made in just 2 days to delete my work
According to User:Yann
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rickdoble#.7B.7BAutotranslate.7C1.3D.7Cbase.3DProject_scope.2Fheading.7D.7D
my work is now scheduled for deletion, having been nominated for deletion only 2 days ago (nominated on October 9 and decision made to delete on October 11). Is this normal procedure? Is this fair? Do I not get more time to respond or ask others I know in Wikimedia to respond? Told that my work was out of scope, I responded this way:
My work here on Wikimedia is not Out of scope. As a teacher and educator myself, or course, I respect the purpose for which Wikimedia was created. I have clearly noted how my work has an educational purpose -- with 40+ college libraries (over 240 libraries worldwide) carrying my book, Experimental Digital Photography, and also a number of courses being offered with the name Experimental Digital Photography which is what my work is about -- so my work here has an educational purpose. As I stated in my response to this deletion nomination of over 100 of my files, I put them up there for students, teachers, schools and educators to use. I clearly detailed all of this in my response to the deletion nomination. Did it get read? And if what I have said does not qualify for an educational purpose, why not?--Rickdoble (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

KEEP Definitly keep: this is truely experimental and original artwork. Ot pushes bounderies of photography beyond the canons of "focused, centered and reality based" etc. It has also been studied in Universities in Europe ( Marcella Giulia Lorenzi, phd, artist, University of Calabria, Italy).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsloan (talk • contribs) 17:03, 10 October 2014‎ (UTC)

 Comment Somebody is creating accounts to vote keep here 13:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)The Photographer (talk)

Hi, could be nice see a litle more of your opinion --The Photographer (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time seeing your claim that this account was created in order to vote in this DR as anything other than blatantly false, given the age of the account and its edit history massively predates the DR. --Elvey (talk) 03:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

 Delete Out of scope: unused files, self-created artworks. BrightRaven (talk) 08:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

 Delete As per BrightRaven.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

 DeleteNot relevant to Commons, which isn't a personal art gallery or image hosting site. Please try Flikr or Imgur. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Delete: As the user opened a very large thread in the COM:AN, the user expected respect of his works, but the user clearly don't want to follow the Project scope, and mentioning Wilfredo R. Rodríguez not qualified to nominate my work for deletion in the COM:AN thread is assuming bad faith (anyone who know the policies can nominate files clearly outside the PS). Also, as The Photographer mentioned above about possible sockpuppet of the mentioned user commenting here (oppising to this DR), I strongly recommend to do a Checkuser. --Amitie 10g (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
• Because there is always a lot of fuss around artistic images, I am uploading "nice shots", that are not unambiguously educative to Flickr and ask for a second opinion first. Other users do the same. Transfer from Flickr relatively easy in case some pictures are considered useful. -- Rillke^(q?) 00:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

 Comment(Jameslwoodward): It's nice to see an admin take a stand AGAINST Arbitrary, out of process, actions ! Kudos, Jim! --Elvey (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

 Keep for File:01_self-portrait_experimental_digital_photography_by_Rick_Doble.jpg, IMHO the best of the lot; nice cubist effect. I think the uploader has made some valid points that I hope the closer looks at, e.g. #6. While I think the photos are generally quite "bad", that's my view. I don't think they're out of scope and I think deleting 'em all is not in accord with policy other than IAR and misinterpretations of scope. I also note the quite "bad" quality of some delete !votes. The AN thread should be speedily closed if it hasn't already been; discussion should be in one place.--Elvey (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Keep, all considered. Maybe some of these can be later on shown to be off-scope, but there’s enough good stuff in here to make such a bundle nomination a bad idea. Lots of sensible re-categorizing is necessary, though, and surely some descriptions should be “tamed”. -- Tuválkin ✉ 00:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

---

 Comment When I first glanced through the vast overkill above -- 3,400 words of diatribe -- my first reaction was that we don't want this guy on Commons and we should delete them all. However, I note that he actually has had three books published, and is arguably an expert in the field, so perhaps my knee jerk reaction was wrong. I think that perhaps we should consider keeping some of the images, provided that they do not appear in his books or on any copyrighted site on the web. Images that have been previously published require OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

 Comment Hi @Jameslwoodward: , Publishing a book on Amazon and other social networks is relatively easy, especially when done by the same author. The books were published by him also watching the reviews are mostly negative. I myself have read his books (Available on his facebook page), the books seem to try to convince the reader of the importance of the author rather than teaching, secondly, most of the images here nominated for deletion are not present in their books. However, I have not nominated to deletion all his photos, although, I must confess that it was hard for me to think about a possible future use. Additionally, the author is present in many of his photos. --The Photographer (talk) 11:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this is not an easy call. Note that I did not use {{Vd}} or {{Vk}} above, just a comment. It is clear, though, that because all of us (including me) have had a knee jerk reaction toward deleting the files, that we should be extra careful to give this full consideration.

As you will see above, I have reverted your arbitrary removal of the comment by Lsloan. While Lsloan is an editor with only the one contribution, there is no evidence that he is anything but what he says he is. It is very unlikely that the account is a sock. Arbitrary, out of process, actions such as yours don't make difficult DRs easier. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, surely that PHD expert user found this nomination searching in google and her interesting enough to register to vote. --The Photographer (talk) 13:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Sarcasm is not helpful -- remember that this is a multi-lingual project and many Commons editors will not understand your meaning. I have no doubt that Doble asked Lsloan to make the comment, but that is not against policy and certainly does not justify your removal..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

James, apply the rules excessively does not help either. One thing to assume good faith and another thing is ignore the problem. I invite you to see it. --The Photographer (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I am fully aware of Commons:Offsite_discussion#Canvassing.2Fadvertising. Nowhere there does it even hint that anyone may remove such comments. As I said above, your breaking the rules does nothing to make this difficult DR easier. I have certainly not ignored the off-site discussion -- I said as much above. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You wrote It is very unlikely that the account is a sock, unfortunately, I do not agree with you and everything else derives from this premise. However, I respect your opinion, thanks for your recommendations --The Photographer (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

On what basis do you disagree? Please remember that I am a CU -- I checked them and the two accounts are on different continents, as you might expect since that is what is claimed above. As I said above, I have no doubt that the Lsloan comment was solicited, but it is not a sock. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Waiting quietly for me to I say something wrong, then pull out a trump card that you never showed. You used your checkuser without any formal request. You had checkuser and You never mentioned this until now, why? . A user with no contribution and going alone to vote is sufficient evidence of canvassing. This simple vote you make it a ridiculously long discussion, which makes it a tough vote, though, paradoxically, you blame me for something you are doing yourself. Excess application of the rules stop the process. I invite you to leave this discussion here (because it was off topic) and continue on my talk page. Thank you very much. --The Photographer (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Amitie 10g made a clear request above, but no formal request is required for a CU to act. It's certainly no secret that I am a CU and given the circumstances it should be no surprise that I ran a check before flatly stating "It is very unlikely that the account is a sock." .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Next time write clearly what you did, that really helps to clarity of the process. All this discussion would have saved if you had started saying you did a checkuser, thanks --The Photographer (talk) 22:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

 Keep I was searching for a water animation on Commons and this (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:02_classical_greek_4_elements_water.gif) was the only one that came close to what I had in mind. The description clearly states the source: the uploader and the author of the book are one and the same person. Users can judge for themselves what this means. Why not just strip these files of the self-aggrandizing categories and keep them until a better alternative comes along? --Judithcomm (talk) 10:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done @Judithcomm: Waiting for a better image in the cat. Thanks --The Photographer (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Could somebody who was able to keep up to discussion please summarize the arguments in as few words as possible? Thank you. --Krd 14:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Mr Doble attests that he is notable, that he and his work is/are notable (both in the real world, in print, and he is a successful educator), educational and within the project scope. The nays (me included, for clarity) support the opinion that they are neither educational, good quality nor in the project scope. There are also suggestions that as Mr Doble is included in a lot of the photos that there may or not be ulterior motives in their publication (both here and elsewhere). I hope I've been fair in my summary, as it wasn't my intention to give you a biased summary. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Fred, thank you for this summary, I consider it very helpful.

I personally see each single image clearly out of scope, but more than a few are in use, and taken as a series they _may_ be educationally useful on photography topics.  Neutral --Krd 15:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

What a lard mound is that? That summarizes the arguments for deletion only.

Could somebody who was able to keep up to discussion please summarize the arguments against deletion in as few words as possible? Thank you. --Elvey (talk) 03:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

So why don't you do it then if you think the summary is so biased? So what did I miss out in the 'keep column'? Or are you all piss and wind? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Personal attack above removed by User:Elvey and restored by Fred the Oyster Someone please re-remove the personal attack.--Elvey (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There are 4 keep !votes, not including the uploader's or Jim's, and a neutral; their 6 arguments were not summarized. Your summary creates the false impression that the uploader's is the only !vote that's not for deletion. I think a summary should cover the EVIDENCE presented. Here goes:

Summary

Nays argued that the works are blurred, ayes that the blur is intentional. Several deletionist claims were debunked (e.g. of socking, that the works are out of focus, unused, the book was just on Amazon...). (Comment: IMO, numerous false claims against (for) deletion are strong evidence of I (don't) like it, respectively.) The uploader provides adequate evidence of this kind of photography being studied in educational settings currently, and evidence that it's been around since the birth of photography, and proof that hundreds of libraries worldwide carry 1+ of the photographer's books. The arguments for deletion based on policy were generally not sound. The arguments for keeping based on policy were generally sound. And that's a summary from someone who doesn't even like the photos, as my !vote clearly shows. --Elvey (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact that the blur is intentional does not negate the fact that they are blurred. I don't see much evidence that the author's photography is being studied in educational settings; surely the fact that, say, oil painting is studied in educational settings does not make all oil paintings in scope.

Generally user art is hard to get past scope. If someone on Wikibooks was writing a book on this, I'd be happy to see them upload photos for their needs. But it's hard to say that any of this useful in absence of someone trying to use it, and it's easy to generate.

Unused was not debunked in general. It's trivial to put one or two images out of a large DR to use somewhere, but the only place outside the uploader's userspace these are used on is the gallery he created that's functionally a copy of one in his user space. If you want to argue that they're in use, show links, please.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

[Reply removed. Done with this. Bowing out of the discussion.] Don't put it back unless you want to show that you're here only to argue. Don't put it back unstuck again. --Elvey (talk) 07:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The policy at COM:EDUSE defines in use, and "legitimately in use" and what the scope of the project is; the most relevant "use" question is which files are "legitimately in use", as defined therein. " the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page of another project is allowed." is also relevant. --Elvey (talk) 09:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Why is the uploading of a small number of images relevant? 114 images is not a small number of images. We have never defined "educational use" to include arbitrary artistic works, they don't seem notable as artistic works (there's no evidence the works themselves have been published, for example), and the artist isn't nearly enough notable for every image he makes to be educationally useful.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

My conclusion

The author has provided evidence of social networks, facebook, amazon and other online libraries, portals where you can upload your own book (not necessarily good books). I invite you to see the comments from users who have been scammed by his book on amazon. I also invite you to download the free version of his book available on facebook. You will find some surprises. Another problem is self-promotion, the user has created User:Rickdoble/My Gallery Experimental Digital Photography a subpage for promotion with his photos many times himself] (especially which shows only his face (see also the page)). You have used evidence of courses in experimental photography of others in the which have made a detailed comparison, this can not be counted as valid evidence, basically because there is a kind of experimental photography, this does not mean that the work presented here is whether experimental photography, or an relevant author. In addition, We can not stimulate Narcissistic personality disorder. Perhaps I can be very frank with my comments and my intention is not to offend, is a sincere comment for the author. I do not consider myself a major artist, however, I would like to apologize if my comments were too strong despite being sincere. I really want you to be a famous artist when that happens, we'll be here waiting with open arms around your massive work, much of what we consider art (especially modern art) is incomprehensible to many people, however, Commons is not the place, until other people recognize your work and you as an important artist, an immortal artist. Many pictures of me have also been deleted, I remember the administrator Jammes, some time ago proposed for deletion one svg image made by me, about an African American woman, is another matter and has nothing to do with this, however, I believe important to quote him because I am not an important artist and while that may be so, my artwork should not be in commons, especially modern or experimental art. Regardless of the final decision, I would be very happy to keep watching you work in commons. Greetings. --The Photographer (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

"her book"??? Please provide free download link (I can find none; you seem to not understand the facebook page) and say what surprises I should be looking for. What are you saying about the world cat link? You seem to be saying that those hundreds of entries don't represent physical books on the libraries shelves, but AFAICT, they do. That seems to be yet another untrue statement. Besides, this section belongs with the other comments. --Elvey (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done I am sorry for tell her book, translation problem, this is the link Download book here --The Photographer (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... That seems to be a link to a different thing; it's not to his book thats showing up in worldcat; it's something else - an e-publication of his. I guess your lack of response means you're conceding that the world cat link does show hundreds of entries that DO represent physical books on the shelves of hundreds libraries. I think you need to take a look at w:WorldCat... --Elvey (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

(This section now properly retagged under an H5.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Kept: It is still controversial if the files are in scope or not. Anyway, I'm going to keep them for now as there is no concensus for deletion. Krd 21:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

---

 CommentWhy does Lsloan NOW seem to be a LONG-established user who voted "KEEP"w/o reason??? Weird. Doesn't seem to have been a new user though described as "an editor with only the one contribution"!?! [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Rickdoble&diff=136997914&oldid=136997639 inserts a novel-seeming reason allegedly removed by a disappeared user named wilfredor that Lsloan's edit history shows they never provided in the first place?!? (Is a Winston Smith at work??? Seems like it.) --Elvey (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)