Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vintage print

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 02:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vintage print[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly written, and somewhat confusing to the uninitiated. It's been unreferenced since 2009 and is edited maybe once or twice a year. There is no claim of notability nor is the subject fully explained. HarryKernow (talk to me) 00:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And your reason for deletion is? Certainly notable, and somewhere we have a better article on this, to which this should be redirected. Johnbod (talk) 03:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod The reason for deletion is clear. There is no substance in this article worth keeping, no references for years, and nothing notable for years. It isn't even indicated from the text that "vintage prints" are notable in any way and doesn't show really what they are or how they are classified, or anything. HarryKernow (talk to me) 03:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a plus, from the edit rate (some years don't even have edits) this is clearly not a worthy article and generates very little traffic. HarryKernow (talk to me) 03:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, perhaps make a footnote in some photography article. While it looking bad and being unreferenced are not appropriate deletion criteria, WP:NOTDIC is, and I may be stretching with it a tad here, but the way the subject is described in the article is basically a definition, and a seemingly subjective one at that. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 05:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is not the dictionary definition and while the article is poorly written and definitely need expansion and rework (hence, it was marked as stub for quite a time), it's a legit term and should not be deleted. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhere, there is a rather detailed article on what constitutes an original print (or whatever the term is) by big-name classic photographers like Adams. Can't find it though. At least Vintage photography no longer redirects to Erotic photography, after I changed it. Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod Do you think merging Vintage print and Vintage photography would work? HarryKernow (talk to me) 06:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That just redirects to History of photography, which doesn't really go into much detail. But somewhere we have a better target. Johnbod (talk) 12:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Vintage print is a term in the Art and Architecture thesaurus. Unless there is a better article that it can redirect to, it should be kept as a stub. Mduvekot (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mduvekot. Johnbod (talk) 12:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.