Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Photography

Paddy Scott (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)

Cannot see or find anything to suggest notability. TheLongTone (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message TheLongTone. My thoughts on notability had been that it adds context to the Willis Resilience Expedition article as well as the family information of Bladen Hawke and Sir Nicholas Scott JaneBotha94 (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have also added the appropriate incoming links so it is no longer an orphan article JaneBotha94 (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nothing gets this photographer close to notability for an entry into Wikipedia per the sources cited in the article and WP:BEFORE search conducted. Mekomo (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Photography, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep. See Category:Fellows of the Royal Geographical Society, while his FRGS status alone does not constitute notability, if a fair amount of well-sourced information can be found, the article should remain. The article has just been created today, see WP:BEFORE C.2 - the article likely requires time to develop. TheOilSpillExpert (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For work relating to Willis Resilience Expedition, live interviews from the Antarctic Interior are rare, and were even rarer (if not a first) in 2013/24 Mary.Cunliffe66 (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel his work raising awareness of cancer in younger men, as well as the added context to the page Sir Nicholas Scott gives a level of notability. I agree that the article will develop further with time. JaneBotha94 (talk) 09:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The strength of an argument is usually when it's backed by relevant policies and not just mere opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. See the following source assessment. Jfire (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Lee (still photographer) (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)

Clear case of WP:NOTINHERITED. Everything is related to his brother Spike Lee in a search. Article is sourced to a self published website. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 05:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Film, Television, Photography, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – there are some articles about him (Chicago Sun-Times, AMPAS 1, AMPAS 2), but always in reference to his brother's work. Also wouldn't be opposed to merging to a new "Family" section or similar at Spike Lee, with info from Joie Lee and Cinqué Lee as well. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123 That's not a bad idea on a family section in the Spike Lee article. I would support a selective merge to Spike Lee as an WP:ATD if an editor steps forward who wants to take that on.4meter4 (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing !vote to merge to make consensus a bit clearer. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per the above. The sources are sufficient to support coverage in the context of his highly notable brother. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maddelynn Hatter (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 relies on blogs, self-published podcasts, and non-independent sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Additionally, fails WP:BLP1E as everything revolves around competing on a television show.4meter4 (talk) 03:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not expand this redirect, but I removed the bad sources and added a few more sources + claims to the article. I'd say there's probably enough coverage to stitch together a decent biography about her early life, career, and personal life, but IF the subject is deemed not notable then please just redirect the page to The Boulet Brothers' Dragula season 3. The page serves a purpose and there's no need to delete the article history. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, Photography, Sexuality and gender, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the additional text that's recently been added. I think there's room to expand this. If there's insufficient support for keep, I would also settle for a merge with the Dragula article. Lewisguile (talk) 08:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per GNG. I've added several more sources and think the entry should be expanded and improved, not deleted ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: does not appear to meet WP:ENT, no valid secondary sourcing. Interviews do not count, nor do blogs or Youtube. Mamani1990 (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Rodriguez (photographer) (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)

Fails WP:SIGCOV. The New York magazine piece is a great feature of his photographs but there isn't much prose about the subject accompanying the photos. The other source is the subject's website. There's not enough indepth coverage here to justify an article.4meter4 (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Photography, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The relevant standard here is WP:CREATIVE, which doesn't require secondary biographical SIGCOV. Here is a full journal article about Rodriguez's work, here are two articles about his work in photography publications that I think give very strong evidence of passing WP:CREATIVE criteria 1, and here are reviews/features of his photography books in The Guardian, The New York Times, the BBC, the Wall Street Journal, Le Monde, the American Historical Association and Vice (that last one being largely an interview) that show a pass on criteria 3. The fact that his work has been the sole subject of a large number of exhibitions in galleries and feature pieces in major newspapers is probably also a pass on criteria 4. I think he easily passes WP:CREATIVE. MCE89 (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Pixillion Image Converter (via WP:PROD on 10 September 2023)