Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candid photography

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 16:46, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Candid photography

A personal essay on candid photography. Delete. JoaoRicardo 21:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: "A personal essay on <topic>" would describe most new Wikipedia articles. Why do you feel this one stands out for deletion? --Jwanders 22:03, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually I would vote to delete every personal essay, not just this one. It is against the NPOV policy, and the fact that some people have rewritten articles that were previously personal essays doesn't make it less so. Obviously, if someone will rewrite this into a serious article and prove candid photography is an encyclopedic topic, there is no need to delete it. As it stands, it is unencyclopedic. JoaoRicardo 23:41, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Mark for cleanup. I'm surprised we don't have an article on this already. The topic is definitely encyclopedic. The writing style is too personal and breeze. But the topic is important enough that it is likely to attract knowledgeable editors who will improve and expand it. If the article's contributor reads this: the biggest problem I see is that you state a number of things on your own authority. The quickest thing you could do to improve the article would be to dig into some books and magazines and replace these statements with quotations from sources that readers will probably accept as authoritative. For example, you say "Arthur Fellig, better known as Weegee, was also one of the great and renowned 'candid' photographers." Can you find a quotation that says this instead of saying it yourself? Don't violate copyright of course, but short quotations are fair use. Be sure to include a reference to where you found it. I thought this statement was obviously correct when I read it, but actually I just tried an online search of The New York Times, a service provided by my local public library; I found several articles about Fellig/WeeGee and was surprised to find that they did not use the word "candid" at all, so now I'm not sure the statement is correct. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:34, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs cleanup and expansion but seems a legit enclyclopedia article to me. Nashikawa 22:55, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Shows promise, already growing into a decent article. -- Cleduc 05:36, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Reasonable article and given that a Google search for candid photography got 14,300 results, it appears that the concept is reasonably notable. [1] Capitalistroadster 09:56, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs some work and has some opinions, but it's a valid topic and a reasonable start. --Aranae 08:47, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Needs work, but keep - David Gerard 10:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I rewrote the article to comply with the required encyclopediness. Even though I liked it beforehand, it was a simple feat. I believe that focussing on certain aspects of an entry, paragraph by paragraph, makes it easier for other people to understand the content, but also, it makes it easier to find mistakes, add more knowledge, and to rearrange the text. - Wolf, 13:49 (GMT+1), 12 Mar 2005.

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.