This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Photography.
Points of interest related to Photography on Wikipedia: History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – Style |
It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Visual arts.
watch |
Does not passes WP:GNG. TheChronikler7 (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
I am nominating this article for deletion due to significant concerns regarding its notability and the reliability of its sources. Despite attempts to engage the community for improvements, the article suffers from critical issues as outlined below:
Broken Links or Unavailable Sources: The article relies heavily on sources that are either broken or inaccessible, undermining the verification process. Key examples include:
Sports Illustrated cover, 2001 (link) - broken. "Phuket, Thailand, October 2000" by The Advocate, HighBeam Research, Inc., February 3, 2004 - inaccessible. "By Stewart Shining, for Time Out (February 1996)" from natalieportman.com - archived and unavailable. Other broken or archived sources include links from People Magazine, Rolling Stone, and celebrians.com covering various photo shoots and articles from 1996 through 2008.
Links That Do Not Verify Notability or Credibility: Several sources mention Shining's work but do not provide substantive discussion of his role or influence, failing to establish his notability. This includes articles like "Goddess of the Mediterranean" from CNN/Sports Illustrated and various brief mentions in Rolling Stone that do not analyze his impact in the field.
Overreliance on Primary Sources: The article predominantly uses primary sources, such as stewartshining.com and celebrians.com, which may introduce bias. These sources largely showcase the subject’s work without any critical analysis or third-party perspective, failing to meet the standards for reliable, independent verification of content. Misrepresentation of Roles or Inaccurate Information: The article includes claims not supported by reliable secondary sources, such as the subject's alleged significant roles with non-profits and major editorial contributions. For instance, a Wall Street Journal article titled "New Optimism for AIDS Activist" and information from Photo District News do not confirm his reported roles, creating potential misinformation.
Given the extensive reliance on problematic sources, combined with a significant lack of independent and reliable secondary coverage, the subject's notability cannot be adequately verified. Therefore, I recommend a discussion on whether this article should be retained, heavily edited, or deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitsoukorussie (talk • contribs) 05:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Unref article, and I couldn't find sources to show he meets WP:BIO / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Probable UPE advertisement for non notable individual. Just another working photographer. Refbombed to primary source showing he has done work but there is a lack of independent coverage about him. None of the claimed awards are major awards or are specifically for him. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
an important figure...widely cited by peers or successors; (B)
originated a significant new concept, theory, or technique; (C)
created -or played a major role in co-creating- a significant or well-known work; (D)
[his] work has become a significant monument, been part of a significant exhibition, won significant critical attention, or been represented within permanent collections. I'm afraid our subject meets none of the four. --The Gnome (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm surprised that User:Jamiebuba approved this page because this company has a long and torrid history of COI and uploading promotional pages to Wikipedia and this page seems no different to what has gone before. Sure, we've got Entrepreneur Magazine which might have been published independently of the subject but there are a lot of sources that don't count as RS like press releases, local newspapers and the dreaded TechCrunch the least independent source in the history of business journalism. I think it's safe to say that this one-man band, run of the mill, stock image supplier fails WP:NCORP and is hardly notable so fails WP:GNG. I am interested to see what crawls out of the woodwork in the ensuing discussion, though.Dafydd y Corach (talk) 08:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
if the topic of this article was about the website/product, these could be examined with a view to establishing the notability of the website/product, but those references do not establish the notability of the *company*.Well, in that case we can write the article on Vecteezy the website instead. In fact, my understanding is that's how the article is written already.
both Techmedia and photutorial earn commission from the "independently reviewed" website's affiliate linksthis interpretation of independence is too demanding and is not supported by ORGIND. The actual reviews demonstrate more than enough deep and original analysis to qualify as significant independent opinion.
Photutorial appears to be little more than a blog, not truly IndependentWell, these are two different allegations – being a blog would make it unreliable, not non-independent. They appear to have a strong editorial policy but looking through the rest of the site it does look like they're a bit of a one-man operation. On the borderline for me.
Add articles whose deletion is proposed (articles that are "prodded") here.
This article uses material from the Wikipedia English article Photography, which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license ("CC BY-SA 3.0"); additional terms may apply (view authors). Content is available under CC BY-SA 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
®Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wiki Foundation, Inc. Wiki English (DUHOCTRUNGQUOC.VN) is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wiki Foundation.