Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intro to photography

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 delete. Sandstein 18:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Intro to photography

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This is a newly created article which seems to primarily a summary of several other pages and then moves into an essay with lack of inline citations. WP:NOT applies.. I don't think this warrants it's own article since all the other relevant information already exists in the other articles. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What the what? WP:NOT indeed. Lightburst (talk) 02:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This reminded me of a syllabus or course handout for an Intro to Photo class; it is not an encyclopedia article. WP:NOTTEXTBOOK It was a good-faith effort by a new editor with lots of potential, but it doesn't belong here. Netherzone (talk) 02:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Le sigh. WP:SUMMARY explicitly supports the notion of the Introduction to X format for articles, e.g. introduction to evolution. Why the hell are new editors whose first contributions are full articles being immediately slapped with AfDs? This should be rapidly closed, the editor who created the article in question gently encouraged to improve it, and every previous participant in this AfD hit with as large a trout as is immediately available. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Thumperward: this particular page is a summary of a summary, all the information is pulled from the Photography page, with the exception of the Genres of Photograph section. Photography consists of multiple summaries of the same pages this one points to. This just seems redundant. The extra section of the Genres could just be added to the other page when properly cited. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Might there be a better solution to this than immediately hauling a new editor's first contributions to AfD? I swear that I don't know what some people expect of our contributors sometimes. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't "Introduction to...X" only used for highly technical or scientific subjects? I thought I had commended the creator for their effort and potential, but I guess it was not expressed strongly enough? How about renaming the article "Genres of photography", or "Photographic genres"; the the duplicated content can be deleted, and the article creator can develop the article in relation to the many photographic genres out there (i.e. medical photography/imaging, cyanotypes, photograms, pin-hole photography, cameraless photography, micro-photography, etc.)? Netherzone (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that photography is not a highly technical or scientific subject would be greatly relieving to the many thousands of people who could give up researching it and take up, say, fly fishing instead. But repurposing of any form would be welcome. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if it was Introduction to Photography it wouldn't be a great deal better. This is a personal essay, signifiant unsourced chunks of which were added to Photography. It is composed of personal opinion and copied phrases and sentences from the parent article and strives to emphasis the exposure triangle a concept also added to the parent article. If there was a need for an introduction article on photography, which I personally doubt, this certainly isn't it. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That the author also added similar content directly to photography is an orthogonal matter. For what it's worth, the MOS-approved title would be introduction to photography, no title-case. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Without really wanting to continue to reply-all here, note that this was obviously part of Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/College of DuPage/Research, Writing, and the Production of Knowledge (Fall 2020). I'd strongly recommend short-circuiting this AfD and engaging with whatever progress is in place over at WP:WEP to resolve this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative delete. This article was clearly created in good faith, despite being a bit underperforming in terms of meeting certain policies and guidelines. Well done to the editor who created it on at the very least trying to create a well-sourced, thought-out article – hopefully his/her next one is an improvement and I hope that we are able to provide this editor with some useful and helpful advice. Would suggest merging the "Genres" section elsewhere (unsure where, am certainly open to suggestions). Sean Stephens (talk) 12:06, 26 October 2020 (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.