Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PetaPixel

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 . (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 09:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PetaPixel

[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)

It gets a few mentions, but I can't find any in-depth coverage from a reliable, independent, secondary source to show that it meets either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Photography, and Websites. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, we use them as a source nearly 400 times, and there's no shortage of references to them in reliable sources (note the current page's further reading for some examples). The problem appears to be finding sources that talk exclusively about them, but this is a challenge of them being referenced so frequently but often for only a paragraph or two in part of a larger story. For example, The New York Times has referred to them ~40 times, The Washington Post ~10 times, etc. At some point all that "minor" coverage, IMO, makes the subject notable. As an aside, WP:CORPDEPTH gives examples of "trivial coverage", and most of the coverage I'm finding would exceed the examples given (thus being non-trivial). For example, their interview with Camille Lepage, which was referenced by FOX News (in article currently), The Washington Post, and other major media outlets. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Meets WP:CORPDEPTH by virtue of being a stub, but still a complete one and barely passing the bar of not being brief (but it's pretty close). There is significant coverage and notability by virtue of WP:GNG as it has been covered by reliable secondary sources and has been included in a number of citations and articles. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

.Delete A news site mentioning the subject in passing is a passing mention, it might be considered an RS but doesn't pass COREDEPTH. There isn't an significant coverage in the article currently, not here, and I can't find any searching online. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that WP:NCORP - Examples of trivial coverage explicitly states it is not exhaustive, but the type of coverage I see for PetaPixel is significantly more than the trivial examples given. It's not merely quotes, they're citing them as a source for their tertiary content. It's also rather quick to go from article creation to deletion in less than a month in what is very clearly a WP:STUB. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no discussion or analysis of the company in any of that, just passing mention of their reporting. The timeline of article creation has nothing to do with notability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "passing mentions" listed there are much more benign than the type available in our sources. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Struck my comment given the source found by Skynxnex, Keep. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 08:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. PetaPixel is pretty widely cited throughout photography press archived on archive.org, a few examples: If you're bored with your camera read this book, f11 magazine: Petapixel is the first port of call for many photographers with articles, photographs, reviews and good worldwide gossip., and Amateur Photographer. And mainstream press: A photo-editing AI thought this blurry photo was actor Ryan Gosling's face and fairly high praise when using it as a source When Pictures Are Too Perfect, WSJ: PetaPixel, which has been out front in chronicling the McCurry case and other Photoshop controversies, reported on .... And the interviews are referenced in textbooks: Psychology, 2nd edition, publisher Oxford. And here's a write-up about PetaPixel in a magazine Amateur Photographer: Nothing short of a portal to a wealth of photographic knowledge, filtered and available at click of a mouse, PetaPixel is the brainchild of computer programmer and photography enthusiast Michael Zhang, and photographer and writer Jessica Lum. The blog is updated regularly and covers a lot of ground, which is impressive for a site that began only two years ago. and book Blogging for Photographers: Not as math-intensive as that description might make you think, Petapixel gets a lot of coverage in the photo blogosphere for its impressive mixture of up-to-date news stories and well researched perennial posts with lots of great advice for photographers of all skill levels., and, to me, a surprising number of cites/references in books on Google books. Skynxnex (talk) 14:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable and long-running photography web site, often used as a reliable source in Wikipedia articles. Klausness (talk) 12:25, 21 April 2023 (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.