Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 in 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 no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Opinion on this one are all over the board and I do not believe another relisting is likely to result in consensus. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 in photo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Not enclycpedic, similar articles should also be considered. This was raised on #wikipedia-en IRC today. RhinosF1 (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By similar articles, I mean any Year in xxx article. If a wider RfC would be better, please let me know and proceed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RhinosF1 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC is not a valid or substantive argument. And I can't tell if your objection is specific to this page (please elaborate if that's the case), or to the mere fact of a "[year] in [subject]" page...if the latter, please don't waste our time. postdlf (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not encyclopedic is to this article but at this point in the year certainly for this year, I don't see 2019 in XXX articles being of much use as not much will have actually happened to be notable.
  • For previous years, I believe we need to establish whether they provide any substantial benefit to the encyclopedia and even whether a category could replace them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RhinosF1 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • What would be the point of deleting lists that are necessarily going to be expanded as the year progresses? And re: categories, see WP:NOTDUP. postdlf (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, no valid reason for deletion has been presented. postdlf (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per postdlf --Patriccck (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing much useful about this article, it just appears to be a calendar of routine events or photo awards. Only a few of them are notable and have dates attached. Consider nominating 2018 in photo as well. Ajf773 (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: ATM just a calendar of events, no notability shown for most of it. There should be a limit before these articles can be created. RhinosF1 (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: Should an RfC be started on the general need for calendar of events style articles? RhinosF1 (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. The only real question is whether a particular topic merits one, not whether we should be doing it at all. Note also that I have struck your "delete" !vote above because you've already weighed in as the nominator, and using that formatting in a subsequent comment looks at first glance like separate support. postdlf (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This topic shown no notability for a list. As has been pointed out the 2018 in photo article doesn't either. RhinosF1 (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Question for Patriccck (the creator): What's this page supposed to be about: 2019 in photo(graph)s (plural), or 2019 in photography? -- Hoary (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hoary: Thanks for question, 2019 in photography (in photography art, science), like on Czech Wikipedia --Patriccck (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This page appears to have been put together with particular laziness. It derives indirectly from (French) fr:2019 en photographie (by Polmars), a list that itself is pretty unexciting but does at least link to actual (fr:WP) articles on prizes. This Englished version instead has links to articles (in en:WP) on the French names for those same prizes. Surprise surprise, they're red. A bit of extra work would have found the names in en:WP for the same prizes. (A few minutes ago, I made the needed changes for just two of these awards, to show the way. For awards that don't have articles in en.WP but do have articles in other Wikipedias, the Illm template could be used.) Each award has a flag icon, but the awards don't represent their nations; see WP:FLAGCRUFT. I'd be happy if there were a thoughtfully and energetically compiled article for each year in photography, but this article is just lazy. If somebody lacks the time or effort needed to create an article that goes some way toward being helpful, then that person shouldn't create the article at all -- is my belief, but it's not en:WP policy. -- Hoary (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Good idea, but to say that the implementation is half-baked would be generous. Therefore, together with 2018 in photo, move to draft space. There, rename both drafts to "[year] in photography", improve them (aiming for accuracy and helpfulness rather than comprehensiveness), and work on Draft:2017 in photography (yes, 2017). When both this and Draft:2018 in photography have reached an informative and helpful state, ask to have them promoted to article space. No earlier than July, ask to have the greatly improved Draft:2019 in photography moved there too. -- Hoary (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to the creator. Patriccck, this article would probably get a lot more sympathy from people (such as me) who think it's potentially worthwhile and perhaps also from people who (so far) don't think so, if you'd take the trouble to improve it. My own minor edit three days ago is the most recent. You've found enough spare time to edit cz:WP; how about editing this article? -- Hoary (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hoary, what should I improve in the article? Btw. Czech Wikipedia doesn't czwiki, but cswiki. --Patriccck (talk) 06:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I think of "cs" as Czechoslovakia and avoid it. A silly mistake. ¶ Please see this edit, in which I changed red links to article titles in French to blue links to article titles in English. Go to fr:2019 en photographie, click on the blue links from it, and look in those pages for the titles of the English equivalents. That's how you'll find that fr:Prix Niépce is Niépce Prize. Replace the French name with the English one. By contrast, fr:Prix HSBC pour la photographie doesn't have an English equivalent. This English-language page of HSBC's shows that, surprisingly, the name even within English-language contexts is still "Prix HSBC pour la Photographie". Look at the bottom left of the French-language Wikipedia page for "Modifier les liens". This goes to Wikidata item Q3404784. So you provide the link "{{Illm|Prix HSBC pour la Photographie|WD=Q3404784}}". This will point to the Wikidata item as long as there is no English-language page. When there is an English-language page, the link will point to this page. -- Hoary (talk) 08:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • No change. It seems that when I wrote the comment immediately above, I was just wasting my time. -- Hoary (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We’re only 17 days into the year for crying out loud. What notable achievements in photography have been done yet for an encyclopedic article? Let alone an accurate one. None. WP:TOOSOON. Trillfendi (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, hey! why isnt the walkleys in the article? thats better, just added it (at the top of the awards list as oz comes before france:)), do agree, though, that this article is possibly too soon. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there's content and this type of article is a generally-accepted part of Wikipedia's navigational structure. If you really feel otherwise, you'll probably need an RFC and then some AFDs. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thinks: "Ha ha. power~enwiki must be kidding." Takes a look. Thinks again: "Holy fuck, power~enwiki is right." And some of what can be found there are labours of love, one might say. Take for example the lavishly referenced List of Bollywood films of 2019. Impressive, until one notices the nature of the references (twitter-twitter). Ah well, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. -- Hoary (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2019 (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.