I just want to make sure this is documented here, lest anyone think that WR is simply a nest of petty whiners and complainers who see collusion and intrigue in the smallest comment.
QUOTE
Keep. To have a profile in the Columbia Journalism Review seems to establish notability in and of itself, because it's significant coverage in a reliable source, which is what Wikipedia:Notability requires. In addition, there are the Haaretz and Information Week articles that are actually about him, not just containing passing reference to him; his work being used by The New York Times and Encylopaedia Britannica; and the comic strip based on his work in Time Out. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 13:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
* Whoa, Slim, I'm going to stop you right there. His work is "used by the Encylopaedia Britannica" in the sense that my work is "used by Wikipedia"; he happens to have uploaded some photos to the user-editable section of the E.B., and anyone else could do the same. If "used by the Encylopaedia Britannica" in this context is grounds for an article, then I'll get writing on LaraLove and Realist2 on the basis of their Maynard James Keenan and Michael Jackson Wikipedia articles being ripped off borrowed by the BBC. – iridescent 13:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I think Iridescent demolishes the Britannica claim, but
here's a link to the Time Out cartoon, which says underneath:
QUOTE
"Want an illustrator to draw a comic strip based on your New York City photo? Email us your pictures now!"
I don't think SlimVirgin would accept that as evidence of notability for anyone other than Shankbone.