![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 20 September 2021. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on August 24th, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This seems to be an overblown vanity page. I am doing some research to see if we can make it more balanced, more accurate, and more in line with any actual notability. Lexis/Nexis has only three hits for this guy.
1. he is mentioned in the New York Times obit for Robert Denning, "Robert Denning, 78, Champion of Lavish Decor," September 5, 2005. The mentions amount to the following:
" In 1942, when Mr. Denning was a student at the High School of Music and Art, he met Edgar de Evia, an aristocratic Mexican-born medical researcher, and became his companion and eventual business partner." . . . "[Denning] and Mr. de Evia, who became a prominent commercial photographer, went on to found a real estate company and become owners of an estate in Greenwich, Conn. They also lived on three floors of one of the grandest houses in Manhattan, the Gertrude Rhinelander Waldo mansion, an 1898 faux-French chateau at Madison Avenue and 72nd Street." . . . "In 1959, Mr. Denning became involved with Vincent Fourcade, a playboy scion of a French banking family, and left Mr. de Evia."
2. He is mentioned in the paid memorials in the Times for Mr. Denning, which notice was paid for by David McJonathan-Swarm, same person who seems to have written this page and some other vanity pages.
3. New York Times obit for "Vincent Fourcade, 58, Decorator Known for His Ornate Interiors," on December 25, 1992, has a very brief mention, "It was during that time that Mr. Fourcade met Mr. [Robert Denning], who was then working for the photographer Edgar de Evia."
ABI Inform has one additional hit,
New York Magazine, "As Time Goes By," December 19, 1988. Inform doesn't have complete text but the summary reads "The abode of photographer Edgar de Evia is a real home, filled with objects assembled over a lifetime."
That's it. Nothing more. The entry currently states that this guy has written a bunch of novels but Amazon has nothing and Alibris has nothing, so I suspect that they were never published. He has also never published a book of photography that I can find, or been the subject of anybody else's book, all of which would seem to belie the article's claim to notability. No newspaper or magazine in the Nexis or ABI/Inform universe chose to run an obit on him when he died. Uucp 14:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
As a reporter and writer who has written numerous article about individuals whose importance or preeminence in their day has been forgotten or overlooked by history, I think you're being awfully harsh, even gratuitously so, re this entry. Edgar de Evia was indeed a well-established and frequently published photographer in his day. Whether his photography was to your liking or whether you find him important or not compared to other photographers in his field in his day is immaterial. What matters is that his career is an can be established through footnoted material as well as any other sources, published or unpublished, including but not limited to archival materials, et cetera. To damn an article largely because Google or Lexis-Nexis (both of which are hardly inclusive of every bit of published material and which only go back in history so far) don't mention him frequently enough to your liking is also ridiculous. Part of the glory of Wikipedia, for many contributors, is the opportunity to highlight individuals, places, incidents that are of interest to others, whether that interest is major or minor. (The subject of one of your articles, Rita Jenrette, in the grand scheme of things, is impossibly minor, though certainly entertaining and well worth reading about.) It is, after all, an encyclopaedia. I vote for the de Evia article to stay in place, be streamlined to accord more closely with Wiki guidelines, and to lard the damn thing with as many relevant footnotes as possible. I'll be happy to help with this. I did not know de Evia -- though I met him once, in an elevator, when I worked at ELLE Decor and he was a neighbor of one of our editors, who admired his work greatly. However I do know a variety of individuals in the New York City art and design scene (including Roger Prigent, who was a widely published fashion photographer in the 1950s and 1960s), who were around in the 1940s and 1950s and who knew of de Evia, his reputation, and his photography. Mowens35 14:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
What's the "Edgar de Evia Archives" used as a source? Is it a publication related to Edgar de Evia or some friend of him? The claim that he worked for Assossiated Press, for instace, would be better backup'd with a Assossiated Press related source. -- Abu Badali 19:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Directly from Wiki (see second graph, which is what I'm focussing on -- itals throughout my own addition):
Research that draws predominantly on primary sources is generally discouraged, in favor of research based on secondary sources. However, where an article (1) makes only uncontentious descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely or primarily on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events). These are relatively rare exceptions and contributors drawing predominately or solely from primary sources should be exceptionally careful to comply with both conditions. NOTE: I'm trying to get published source information that will obviate the need to mention the de Evia archives at all where applicable, but I have to put something in the meantime
Research that consists of collecting and organizing information from primary and secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Mowens35 21:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The American Museum of Advertising & Design in Milwaukee believes it has de Evia in its collection and is checking on public availability/access to these materials. Mowens35 14:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
This is a list of changes I did and of portions of this article I think are problematic.
-- Abu Badali 20:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Was he really 21 when he graduated from high school? Uucp 18:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
According to the Dalton School, yes, he was 21 ... it is in their records as such ... I have no idea why and neither does the school. It was more than 70 years ago. Mowens35 18:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
In earlier versions of this article, David McJonathan-Swarm described de Evia as having written numerous novels, volumes of poetry, short stories, etc., without mentioning that none had ever been published. Given this frankly misleading behavior, I think it is important that the article be very clear about which photographic work by de Evia was actually published. Text that claims he "photographed extensively for Vogue," for example, may hide the reality that he took submitted a bunch of spec photos to them, but they never hired him. Text that claims Conde Nast "hired him to take photos" may hide the fact that they never used the photos he produced. The text that says he photographed various celebrities raises many questions -- were these commissioned photographic portraits, or did de Evia take a candid snapshot of Montgomery Clift's mom going into a restaurant, which David McJonathan-Swarm found in an album after his death and now presents as proof of de Evia's professional significance?
This article is improved from where it started, but given the history, it deserves continuing skepticism. Uucp 18:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I would certainly agree that the fashionspot.com did not belong, and it was not I that added it. On the other hand, perhaps your are not aware that there is a Wikipedia project to add and link the articles on Find A Grave. Wikipedia:Find-A-Grave famous people Doc ♬ talk 03:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Is there still interest in improving this article? Surely, a great deal of work was done but there's just too many things yet to be fixed.... If no one complains, I'm going to remove all unsourced passages from the article so that we can better see what we really have about this person. Best regards, -- Abu Badali 19:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I just removed the unsourced statements. There's still problems with the article, as some of the existing sources are not exactly acceptable (like "Edgar de Evia Archives, New York City, New York"). Also, the images posted on commons don't serve as a source for the statement that these photos were produced "for fashion magazines and commercial advertising".
As a side note, it's sad that the most well sourced part of the article is really about Mr. Evia's ancestors (that is barely off topic) and about his career as a homeopathy research assistant. As he is introduced as an "American photographer" in the first paragraph, we would better benefit from an improved Photography section. Best regards, -- Abu Badali 17:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I have a problem with this passage:
When one reads this, it gives the impression that Mr. Sokolsky considered De Evia's work as an artistic influence to his style. But when we read the actual source in context:
Then the Mr. Sokolsky quote reads:
My interpretation, now that I read the quotation in context, is that Melvin Sokolsky did not considered De Evia's an influence as an artist. It simply found it astonishing that a simple "advertising photographer" could make that much money from trivial works as "Jell-O ads", and decided to pursue a career on that field.
Any suggestions on how the article's paragraph could be changed to avoid the misinterpretation? -- Abu badali ( talk) 02:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 20 September 2021. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on August 24th, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This seems to be an overblown vanity page. I am doing some research to see if we can make it more balanced, more accurate, and more in line with any actual notability. Lexis/Nexis has only three hits for this guy.
1. he is mentioned in the New York Times obit for Robert Denning, "Robert Denning, 78, Champion of Lavish Decor," September 5, 2005. The mentions amount to the following:
" In 1942, when Mr. Denning was a student at the High School of Music and Art, he met Edgar de Evia, an aristocratic Mexican-born medical researcher, and became his companion and eventual business partner." . . . "[Denning] and Mr. de Evia, who became a prominent commercial photographer, went on to found a real estate company and become owners of an estate in Greenwich, Conn. They also lived on three floors of one of the grandest houses in Manhattan, the Gertrude Rhinelander Waldo mansion, an 1898 faux-French chateau at Madison Avenue and 72nd Street." . . . "In 1959, Mr. Denning became involved with Vincent Fourcade, a playboy scion of a French banking family, and left Mr. de Evia."
2. He is mentioned in the paid memorials in the Times for Mr. Denning, which notice was paid for by David McJonathan-Swarm, same person who seems to have written this page and some other vanity pages.
3. New York Times obit for "Vincent Fourcade, 58, Decorator Known for His Ornate Interiors," on December 25, 1992, has a very brief mention, "It was during that time that Mr. Fourcade met Mr. [Robert Denning], who was then working for the photographer Edgar de Evia."
ABI Inform has one additional hit,
New York Magazine, "As Time Goes By," December 19, 1988. Inform doesn't have complete text but the summary reads "The abode of photographer Edgar de Evia is a real home, filled with objects assembled over a lifetime."
That's it. Nothing more. The entry currently states that this guy has written a bunch of novels but Amazon has nothing and Alibris has nothing, so I suspect that they were never published. He has also never published a book of photography that I can find, or been the subject of anybody else's book, all of which would seem to belie the article's claim to notability. No newspaper or magazine in the Nexis or ABI/Inform universe chose to run an obit on him when he died. Uucp 14:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
As a reporter and writer who has written numerous article about individuals whose importance or preeminence in their day has been forgotten or overlooked by history, I think you're being awfully harsh, even gratuitously so, re this entry. Edgar de Evia was indeed a well-established and frequently published photographer in his day. Whether his photography was to your liking or whether you find him important or not compared to other photographers in his field in his day is immaterial. What matters is that his career is an can be established through footnoted material as well as any other sources, published or unpublished, including but not limited to archival materials, et cetera. To damn an article largely because Google or Lexis-Nexis (both of which are hardly inclusive of every bit of published material and which only go back in history so far) don't mention him frequently enough to your liking is also ridiculous. Part of the glory of Wikipedia, for many contributors, is the opportunity to highlight individuals, places, incidents that are of interest to others, whether that interest is major or minor. (The subject of one of your articles, Rita Jenrette, in the grand scheme of things, is impossibly minor, though certainly entertaining and well worth reading about.) It is, after all, an encyclopaedia. I vote for the de Evia article to stay in place, be streamlined to accord more closely with Wiki guidelines, and to lard the damn thing with as many relevant footnotes as possible. I'll be happy to help with this. I did not know de Evia -- though I met him once, in an elevator, when I worked at ELLE Decor and he was a neighbor of one of our editors, who admired his work greatly. However I do know a variety of individuals in the New York City art and design scene (including Roger Prigent, who was a widely published fashion photographer in the 1950s and 1960s), who were around in the 1940s and 1950s and who knew of de Evia, his reputation, and his photography. Mowens35 14:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
What's the "Edgar de Evia Archives" used as a source? Is it a publication related to Edgar de Evia or some friend of him? The claim that he worked for Assossiated Press, for instace, would be better backup'd with a Assossiated Press related source. -- Abu Badali 19:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Directly from Wiki (see second graph, which is what I'm focussing on -- itals throughout my own addition):
Research that draws predominantly on primary sources is generally discouraged, in favor of research based on secondary sources. However, where an article (1) makes only uncontentious descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely or primarily on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events). These are relatively rare exceptions and contributors drawing predominately or solely from primary sources should be exceptionally careful to comply with both conditions. NOTE: I'm trying to get published source information that will obviate the need to mention the de Evia archives at all where applicable, but I have to put something in the meantime
Research that consists of collecting and organizing information from primary and secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Mowens35 21:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The American Museum of Advertising & Design in Milwaukee believes it has de Evia in its collection and is checking on public availability/access to these materials. Mowens35 14:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
This is a list of changes I did and of portions of this article I think are problematic.
-- Abu Badali 20:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Was he really 21 when he graduated from high school? Uucp 18:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
According to the Dalton School, yes, he was 21 ... it is in their records as such ... I have no idea why and neither does the school. It was more than 70 years ago. Mowens35 18:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
In earlier versions of this article, David McJonathan-Swarm described de Evia as having written numerous novels, volumes of poetry, short stories, etc., without mentioning that none had ever been published. Given this frankly misleading behavior, I think it is important that the article be very clear about which photographic work by de Evia was actually published. Text that claims he "photographed extensively for Vogue," for example, may hide the reality that he took submitted a bunch of spec photos to them, but they never hired him. Text that claims Conde Nast "hired him to take photos" may hide the fact that they never used the photos he produced. The text that says he photographed various celebrities raises many questions -- were these commissioned photographic portraits, or did de Evia take a candid snapshot of Montgomery Clift's mom going into a restaurant, which David McJonathan-Swarm found in an album after his death and now presents as proof of de Evia's professional significance?
This article is improved from where it started, but given the history, it deserves continuing skepticism. Uucp 18:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I would certainly agree that the fashionspot.com did not belong, and it was not I that added it. On the other hand, perhaps your are not aware that there is a Wikipedia project to add and link the articles on Find A Grave. Wikipedia:Find-A-Grave famous people Doc ♬ talk 03:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Is there still interest in improving this article? Surely, a great deal of work was done but there's just too many things yet to be fixed.... If no one complains, I'm going to remove all unsourced passages from the article so that we can better see what we really have about this person. Best regards, -- Abu Badali 19:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I just removed the unsourced statements. There's still problems with the article, as some of the existing sources are not exactly acceptable (like "Edgar de Evia Archives, New York City, New York"). Also, the images posted on commons don't serve as a source for the statement that these photos were produced "for fashion magazines and commercial advertising".
As a side note, it's sad that the most well sourced part of the article is really about Mr. Evia's ancestors (that is barely off topic) and about his career as a homeopathy research assistant. As he is introduced as an "American photographer" in the first paragraph, we would better benefit from an improved Photography section. Best regards, -- Abu Badali 17:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I have a problem with this passage:
When one reads this, it gives the impression that Mr. Sokolsky considered De Evia's work as an artistic influence to his style. But when we read the actual source in context:
Then the Mr. Sokolsky quote reads:
My interpretation, now that I read the quotation in context, is that Melvin Sokolsky did not considered De Evia's an influence as an artist. It simply found it astonishing that a simple "advertising photographer" could make that much money from trivial works as "Jell-O ads", and decided to pursue a career on that field.
Any suggestions on how the article's paragraph could be changed to avoid the misinterpretation? -- Abu badali ( talk) 02:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)