Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Photography

WP:DSPHOTO

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:

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.
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.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Photography.

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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Photography/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Photography[edit]

William James Crawford[edit]

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

Unref article, and I couldn't find sources to show he meets WP:BIO / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Photography, Football, Rugby union, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see some of his works online, but I don't see anything to suggest notability. Govvy (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreffed, fails WP:BIO. Anwegmann (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Oviedo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Advertising, Colombia, Georgia (U.S. state), and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Duffbeerforme,

Thank you for your input. I appreciate your concerns and have made extensive revisions to address them.

I have reduced references to primary source in order to address concerns about over-reliance on self-published materials and lack of independent third-party coverage. The revised article now only cites reliable secondary sources when discussing Oviedo's photography work, clients, awards, and publications his work has appeared in.

While Oviedo may not be a household name, the secondary sources demonstrate he is a professional photographer who has done notable work for advertising campaigns and brands like Altoids, Coca-Cola, Virgin Voyages and others. His photography has received recognition from respected industry awards like the Clio Awards, The One Club's ADC Awards, and his work has been featured in publications such as Lürzer's Archive covering advertising and design.

By removing the recurring primary source references and ensuring all claims are backed by independent third-party publications, I believe the revised article adheres more closely to Wikipedia's guidelines on biographies and neutral tone. I'm open to further improving the article if you or other editors have specific concerns. Unless other editors have substantive concerns about the sources or information provided, I believe this article meets Wikipedia's general notability guidelines for creative professionals who have played a major role in significant or well-known bodies of work as outlined under WP:PHOTOGRAPHER. PagePatroller (talk) 14:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PagePatroller is the creator of the article.

Delete since subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. There are no sources to support independent notability. What we have, and, on top of it, what one can find, are typical listings, such as this; interviews, which, by themselves, are not enough to support notability (see WP:OR, note #d), such as this; self-written bios, such as this; presentations of ads in which a lot of people contributed and our subject is mentioned, such as this and this; advertorials in trade publications, e.g. here and here; self-published sources, like this; and simply more of the same.

As to WP:ARTIST, which has been invoked, here are the prerequisites: The article's subject must be (A) 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Delete He is an advertising photographer but not a notable one. The Gnome did an excellent job analyzing the sources. Cullen328 (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vecteezy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Photography, Companies, Websites, and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Biz journal article is repeated in a Lexington newspaper and by Yahoo [1] so feels like a PR item. The rest of the sources given don't impress me. Oaktree b (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously needs a complete rewrite and shouldn't have been accepted in its current state, but these reviews [2] [3] seem like enough for a NCORP/NPRODUCT pass. – Teratix ₵ 14:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Keep They are some reviews from some good news organizations on subject. Enough to satisfy WP:NCORP.Chekidalum (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to meet NCORP although this type of writing shouldn't get past AFC. X (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a *company* therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Two sources mentioned above refer to reviews on the product/website of the company. Just to point out the obvious - 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*. I'd also add that those references would not, in my opinion, meet the criteria for establishing the notability of the product either - both Techmedia and photutorial earn commission from the "independently reviewed" website's affiliate links and appears Photutorial appears to be little more than a blog, not truly Independent, failing WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 links this 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 Independent Well, 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.

In any case there is also PetaPixel's review already cited in the article, which should settle it. – Teratix ₵ 15:13, 28 April 2024 (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.

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