Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Photography/History of Photography

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Photography/History of Photography page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1: 3 months

This page was nominated for merging with Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography on 29 December 2010. The result of the discussion was merge Wikipedia:WikiProject History of photography to a new "Photographic Work" task force of WikiProject Photography.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 91 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Index · Statistics · Log

History of photography pages by quality
Quality
Quality	Total
FA	8
FM	38
GA	31
B	169
C	591
Start	1,229
Stub	695
List	45
Category	209
File	2
Project	4
Redirect	55
Template	6
NA	1
Assessed	3,083
Unassessed	20
Total	3,103
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 13,248	Ω = 4.87

AfDs

These are now listed at WikiProject Deletion sorting/History of photography (transcluded below). You may wish to keep this on your watchlist.

(Old AfD mentions are here.)

Photography

Photo Eminency

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

Article about a non-notable sports news photography company; fails WP:NCORP. The coverage is limited to:

A WP:PRIMARYSOURCE: [1],
Links to news articles/sites that have licensed Photo Eminency photos -- literally the most trivial of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8].
Another trivial mention: [9],
Passing coverage of niche industry awards in WP:TRADES publications: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14].
A source that does not mention the company: [15].

Nothing else qualifying found in a WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Photography, Companies, Martial arts, and Thailand. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable sports photo agency. Vanity page for Reza Goodary. Completely fails WP:NCORP. I would look into who is creating these articles surrounding the "founder" Reza Goodary (Author is trying to evade rules and has recreated the article in different wikis (13 wikis) (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reza Goodary, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reza Goodary (2nd nomination)). Lekkha Moun (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the repeated vanity article creation under the different name, I would support SALTing this page title and ask other participants to consider this as well. @Lekkha Moun, would you agree? Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Lekkha Moun (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't see that this company is WP notable or has the necessary significant and independent coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Some of the sources don't mention the company, or even its founder, at all--even when they're supposed to support claims in the article. This reminds me of the individual articles on Goodary that made lots of claims but had little or no supporting evidence to show WP notability. It does seem like another attempt to get Goodary a page in the English WP. Papaursa (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maddelynn Hatter

(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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article can be expanded further rather than deleted.𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 07:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I never heard of the subject until now, but apparently 57 people I know follow her Instagram account. Since I have several mutuals, I'm not !voting, but I'll take a look at the sources. For the record, coming in 6th place in a reality show just means that there isn't a presumption of notability. She could still pass, pardon the pun. Bearian (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, jeez. Keep it I guess. I does meet the Six Virtues (a standard better than GNG IMO):

1) It is a decent article. Reasonably well written, formatted, etc. It's not such a mess that we'd be better off deleting it.

2) It's of reasonable length, at least a paragraph or so, if not more. It's not just a stub.

3) And there're 14 sources. I expect that most of them are reliable enough. It is true that they are from niche publications for that subculture and not Time magazine, but after all our first pillar starts off with "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia... and combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias". Well an encyclopedia of 21st century American drag performers seems like a reasonable, if highly specialized, thing to exist, and of course for highly specialized topics (American 20th century Great Lakes steamers etc etc) you are not going to many articles in highly notable publications. You have to adjust your expectations for the subject. And there are 14 and not 3, which is a big difference.

4) And it doesn't violate WP:NPOV or WP:BLP, or other core existential rule, at least in a way that is not easily fixable.

5) And it is "encyclopedic", it something that some non-zero (if small) number of serious people learning or writing or just browsing abut this subculture in this time and place might want to read in future, it is not incontrovertibly trivia or ephemera (A pedestrian run over at 5th and main yesterday, what actor was seen holding hands with what actress, Cardinals-Cubs score, etc.) You want to be pretty broad here note that say George H. W. Bush vomiting incident (1992) is still getting 305 looks a day ([16] and so on.

6) And it already exists. It's not like we as a project are considering if we should spend time and energy on making the article; somebody already has. It costs us nothing to leave the work in place.

So... that's good enough for me. Keep. Herostratus (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Templates

Proposed deletion

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

Merging two 19th c categories

I have noticed that Photographic processes dating from the 19th century is the most commonly used one, but there is one Photographic techniques dating from the 19th century. It's creating a false division between them as they are both partially cataloged.

Improving Film speed

Hi there, I just wanted to get my suggestion sped up a little by pointing it out here: Talk:Film speed#ASA: 1943 vs. 1960. --2003:DA:CF39:B861:60FA:97C4:BA2C:67AC (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dani Brubaker nominated for deletion

A new biography of commercial photographer Dani Brubaker is nominated for deletion if anyone cares to participate in the deletion discussion. Yuchitown (talk) 17:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Smith

Is anyone around who could take a look at Draft:Sydney Smith (photographer) and assess notability against this project's guidelines? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]