Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Photography

Shortcut

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. 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

Arri PL

Arri PL (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)

Article created from redirect is completely unreferenced with no notability argument. Although a quick Wikipedia search for "Arri PL" yields 60 hits, these are passing mentions at best. Does not meet WP:GNG and at this rate is a lot of unverifiable original research. Violates WP:OR. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to merge all mounts (this one, Arri standard, Arri bayonet) info Arri. I have found one for all three (see Arri standard#Sources), but it is clearly not large enough to support any of the articles, much less all three of them - but should be enough for a single section, "Mounts". Викидим (talk) 02:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Викидим Good find on the source. But what is there to "merge" if most of the information is unverified? Why not just restore the three redirects and go from there? Cielquiparle (talk) 06:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two approaches possible here: (1) Strict WP:V: "no sources-no text" and (2) lax: "information is most likely true, sources can be found". I am generally adherent of #1, but in this case #2 makes sense IMHO: it is highly unlikely that the long lists of cameras is wrong (or, God forbid, a hoax), so we can keep them, adding {{cn}} and hoping for someone to find and add the sources. As a test, I have checked a random entry, "Silicon Imaging SI-2K", and easily found [1] (first item in the Google search) where the details of a PL mount compatibility are confirmed. I am sure that the other entries can be similarly confirmed by other vendor's sites. Now, this in not WP:SIGCOV, so it does not justify an independent article, but IMHO it is perfectly OK in an already - long ago - compiled list. For the avoidance of doubt, I would be against making a new list this way, essentially relying on WP:User Somebody "Notme" Else to provide the sources. Викидим (talk) 06:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Following the approach #1, three short paragraphs can still be merged, one for each mount. Adding WP:ANCHOR DEFs to the section will help to resolve the external links. Викидим (talk) 06:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirects - All 3 articles have been unreferenced since their creation in 2006. They were changed to redirects in 2022. The articles were restored recently by a user who disregarded their responsibility per WP:BURDEN. Викидим has taken the trouble to search for sources and found there is no WP:SIGCOV to justify individual articles. Further a lot of content in these articles can not be verified. A section on mounts in the Arri article, verified by Hart would be useful and cover the salvageable parts of these 3 articles. (I did wonder if my !vote should be merge or redirect, but decided redirect was more appropriate as it would be easier to start again based on Hart rather than find what was salvageable in the 3 articles and then do a 3way merge into Arri.) --John B123 (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tim McLelland

Tim McLelland (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)

Lack of notability; article has been tagged as possible nn since creation. Cannot find anything online other than amazon, abebooks & the like, none of which establish notability. TheLongTone (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brünnhilde (cat)

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]
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]

Categories

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

Images

Templates

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

Proposed deletion

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

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Photography