Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lens Culture

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 keep. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lens Culture

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

Fails the general notability guideline on "significant coverage" - the sources given are two short appearances in list articles (one of them a sentence long, the other two sentences) and a WSJ journalist briefly mentioning having met the magazine's editor. McGeddon (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Anyone can see that it fails WP:GNG, and it really needs more significant coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EMachine03 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing what can be done by working on it and seeing if enough of a demonstration of notabiltiy can be found in the process. -Lopifalko (talk)

Keep. Admittedly, not a lot of reliable sources cite it, but I believe that, with the recent work on the article, it now demonstrates enough reliably cited notability to justify keeping. The inclusion of Lens Culture by The Independent and Guardian in their short lists of recommendations, is significant, and they are undeniably good citings - in British photography circles, Sean O'Hagan is in my opinion the most notable photography critic. There are also other reliable sources cited that amount to reason to keep in my opinion. Also, Lens Culture are the source / sponsor of a significant photography award that is worth having an article for in Wikipedia with which to tie other photography relaated articles into, in lists of awards people have received. I have been through all the Wikipedia articles that cite Lens Culture and there are many, showing relevance within the world of photography and that it is useful in having an article to link to (whether that means anything or not in terms of Wikipedia notability policy, it is useful within the sphere of photography related editing that I perform). -Lopifalko (talk)

Good work, but the appearance in two sentence-length lists does not clear the bar of WP:ORGDEPTH, which says "Inclusion in "best of", "top 100", and similar lists does not count towards notability at all, unless the list itself is notable, such as the Fortune 500 and the Michelin Guide." The only other source we have for writing about the magazine is a WP:NEWSPRIMARY interview with the founder/editor.

As for the magazine's awards, the sources we have are a sponsor talking about being "happy to support" the award, a festival saying how the magazine's editor is presenting some award winners at their event, and an Italian Huffington Post article discussing the 2014 winners. I would say that only this final source is strong enough to meet WP:RS, but not by itself enough to meet the expected multiple sources of WP:GNG. (Even with a second source, it's looking as if the awards may be more notable than the magazine.) --McGeddon (talk) 09:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the guideline does indeed say (in a footnote): "Inclusion in 'best of', 'top 100', and similar lists does not count towards notability at all, unless the list itself is notable, such as the Fortune 500 and the Michelin Guide." However, there could be a difference between on the one hand inclusion in lists of one or more hundreds, and on the other inclusion in a list of a mere ten. Putting aside Lopifalko's opinion on O'Hagan's notability (sorry, Lopifalko), O'Hagan is the sole person to be identified as photography critic for The Guardian. (See the bottom right of this page -- and if you get to the page quickly, you'll have the pleasure of a link at its top left to the memorable, if photography-unrelated, title "Balls, vagina, or buttocks?".) And The Guardian is a newspaper of some note. -- Hoary (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The two list articles say - quoting them in full - "Lensculture features essays, slideshows, audio and visual interviews and incisive criticism, making it one of the most authoritative and wide-ranging sites." and "A definitive resource for anyone who wants to keep up with the latest trends and debates in contemporary photography. It features essays, reviews and interviews.". These are the only reliable sources we have that write about the magazine, and would only allow us to write the "very brief, incomplete stub" that WP:ORGDEPTH mentions as being just below the benchmark. --McGeddon (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is neither substantial nor much good. And yes, it has had a considerable input from somebody with a COI. (Well, conceivably, from an impersonator. But this seems unlikely; and for now I'll ignore this possibility.) The person with the COI has been upfront about who he is (see his user ID). As we all know, he would have been wise to stick to the talk page; but given that he did edit the article directly, I think he did so pretty well. This edit and its summary are particularly remarkable. The cynical may speculate that this was a last-ditch attempt to spare the article from deletion, but here's a series of edits from the same User ID, long predating the AfD, that perhaps could be bettered but that are far from the the attempts at aggrandizement often flagged by COI templates. Unlike the situations in which many AfDs arise, I don't worry that the person with the COI is going to turn the article that survives the process into an advert. ¶ Lens Culture (aka LensCulture or even Lensculture) has attracted very little attention from what we term reliable sources. But it has attracted some. And a person who has encountered the name somewhere will I think be helped by a short, straightforward en:Wikipedia article on the subject. In its current form the article has flaws but nothing so major as to call for deletion; and (of course putting aside the kinds of vandalism and stupidity that can hit any article) I think it's unlikely that it will be problematic in the future. -- Hoary (talk) 01:00, 24 July 2014 (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.