Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Photography

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Photography. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Photography|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Photography. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Visual arts.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch



Photography

[edit]

Zhu Lan Qing

[edit]
Zhu Lan Qing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Because the source is not independent and significant enough. Also, the person who created this article is closely related to this person or wrote it himself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimike yep (talk • contribs)

Mitch Kern

[edit]
Mitch Kern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It appears that this Calgary-based photographer and academic does not meet NARTIST nor GNG for inclusion. It has been almost entirely edited by single purpose accounts that have only edited this article along with a series of WP:SPA IPs from Calgary that added unsourced personal/professional content (now largely cleaned up). The sourcing is almost entirely non-independent primary sources. The article was recently PROD'ed, then de-prodded by one of the IPs. Then IPs from the same range twice removed two maintenance tags (notability, primary sources) without fixing the issues. There is one article on him in the Real Estate section of a local lifestyle paper which is largely an interview (primary). This leaves one good independent source in McCleans on a pinhole camera he uses with his students. I can't find anything to substantiate NACADEMIC, zero hits on Google Scholar. Basically the article shows that he is a photographer with an MFA degree, and a teaching job WP:MILL, but is he notable per WP-criteria? Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jim_Leisy

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Jim_Leisy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe Jim Leisy fails the WP:GNG criteria. Not enough independent secondary sourcing to prove notability.

The majority of the article is unsourced self-promotion. According to the one reference in the article the artist won a 'Caldera Gold Spot Award' but I can find no explanation of what that is or how notable it might be. He also has a work catalogued by the Smithsonian https://www.si.edu/object/solar-eclipse:nasm_A20170021000 that was gifted by the artist.

Additionally, there appears to be WP:COI from Leisy himself, creating the page in the first place, removing other editors' issue taggs without fixing issues, and multiple edits of the page under User:Jimleisy.

SallyRenee (talk) 12:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Photography, and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 13:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nothing in the Getty ULAN [1], nor much of any mention for a photographer with this name. Nothing in the article shows notability. I don't find any book reviews. Oaktree b (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The COI editing doesn't help, but the subject has been deceased for a decade, I don't really think it matters much at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I have added two references. Leisy meets WP:PHOTOGRAPHER, in particular point 4D: the person´s work has been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. The Smithsonian, the Portland Art Museum, among others.Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Works represented in the Smithsonian, Portland Art Museum, and 'National Air and Space Museum' were all gifted by the artist, apart from one at Portland that I could find that was intentionally purchased with funds provided by the Photography Council (Leisy was on the board of directors - so there's clear WP:COI there): http://www.portlandartmuseum.us/mwebcgi/mweb.exe?request=record;id=70706;type=101 SallyRenee (talk) 09:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The works may have been donated by the author but the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (people) does not make a distinction between purchased and donated works, so that is not a relevant argument. By the way, it is not at all easy to donate work to museums. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am leaning towards delete but not iVoting until I look deeper. I understand the nominator's thoughts about self-donated works in collections, however many institutions would still run a donated work through their acquisitions board; however in the case of the Portland Community College Collection, it's doubtful if they have one. The work in the Houston MFA seems to be donated by another person. The LensScratch article is a good source, however more like that are needed to meet NARTIST and GNG. A GoogleBook search found nothing. Netherzone (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - After searching more, I think there is enough for him to meet notability standards. Here's what I found online: a comprehensive obituary: [2], article in LensScratch: [3], a comprehensive narrative about his work in the collection of the Smithsonian's Air & Space Museum [4], he's quoted here as an expert: [5]. These items along with the permanent collections (even tho several were donations by the artist), [6], however the work at the Portland Community College Collection was not donated by him [7], and has a decent narrative: [8]. The COI content or unsourced self-promo can be trimmed from the article; I think he meets notability, not in the strongest sense, but I do think he is notable. Netherzone (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brünnhilde (cat)

[edit]
Brünnhilde (cat) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a couple of old photographs that "went viral" last year. There's no evidence that this is a subject that attracted significant coverage in the new or elsewhere and as such the page fails WP:NOTABILITY. It is internet pop culture trivia. Ermenrich (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources exactly, we have the Library of Congress and what appear to be blogs. Neither of which is reliable or terribly notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Semafor isn't a blog. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's not, but I doubt it's very good for establishing notability on a subject.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the Library of Congress Magazine (November/December 2020), p. 11. Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that writing about strange subjects indicates that a source is unreliable. "Skibidi Toilet Fortnite" has also been written about by IGN, Polygon, and The New York Times, which are all reliable sources. Claiming that having strange article titles or subjects disqualifies a website's reliability just doesn't hold up. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...yes, and none of those are Boing Boing or known exclusively for covering Skibid Toilet Fortnite and related such things.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Boing Boing is not known exclusively for covering Skibidi Toilet Fortnite and related such things. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By related things I meant "etc." See the list by Ef5.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is, they write about all sorts of non-notable things, which doesn't establish notability in my view. One source is not enough to establish notability, and LOC maintains a huge database, and also doesn't establish notability. All other sources are trivial/non-RS. EF5 15:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing significant about it. Deriannt (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Advertising, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. According to LOC curator Anne Wilkes Tucker, they looked at a million photos, isolated 4000 from that set, and then selected 440 for the exhibition. The process took several years, with the end result reflecting the visual history of America. This particular photo of a cat was chosen for its "whimsical" nature. According to the Associated Press which reviewed the exhibition in Los Angeles (Rogers, John, April 21, 2018, Library of Congress brings America to life in LA photo show, AP) the photo is important in American culture because it represents an early example of the "funny cat picture" from 1936. Photo curator Beverly Brannan told the AP: "Around the turn of the century, in the early 19-somethings, people liked to make pictures of cats and dogs, putting them at tea tables with dolls, putting clothes on them". Rogers writes that the photo reveals "that at least one aspect of photography hasn't changed much in 150 years". Steve Appleford covered the exhibition in a bit more detail for the Los Angeles Times, going into the backstory of the exhibition, why Tucker chose the cat photo (it made her laugh). A year later, Douglas Perry of The Oregonian included the image of Brünnhilde in his May 2019 article about early historical photos of cats in America, referring to it as part of a select set of "memorable American cat images". Mark Jenkins reviewed the exhibition for The Washington Post in April 2022 and highlighted the significance of the selection of these particular images, representing 440 of the total collection of 15 million in the LOC. Is the image notable outside this exhibition? Unlikely, but it achieved notability by being included in it and being described as an early, pre-internet example of what eventually became known as the Cats and the Internet phenomenon. What's unusual, is that we have no coverage of the early 20th century practice of dressing cats up in photos that Brannan told the AP about, and yet here it is and people want to delete it. Viriditas (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Both whimsical cat photos, and famous cats, are ubiquitous now and are unquestionably part of our online culture. Brünnhilde is an early example and is significant for that reason. Wikipedia features an article about the oldest surviving photograph even though it is not really significant except for that. Wikipedia also has an article for Morris the Cat, who is unexceptional apart from also being a famous cat. --WillisBlackburn (talk) 15:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the sort of subject where I'm inclined to err on the side of weak keep, but a suggestion for Di (they-them): whip up a quick article for Not an Ostrich, which is much more solidly notable, and merge this into a dedicated section of that article. FWIW. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea, I will do that. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus. This discussion seems more like opinions on the article subject than an assessment of existing sources. There was the possibility of a Merge mentioned, is there any additional support for that option?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

[edit]
  • Add categories here using the {{cl|CATEGORY}} template

Images

[edit]

Templates

[edit]
  • Add templates here using the {{tl|TEMPLATE}} template

Proposed deletion

[edit]

Add articles whose deletion is proposed (articles that are "prodded") here.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Photography&oldid=1267412666"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy