Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Photogenic

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. Editors are free to create a {{Wiktionary redirect}} instead. Sandstein 08:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Photogenic

[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)

Has been entirely unsourced since its start in 2005 currently doesn't indicate how this is more than a dictionary definition. A quick google search brought up a bunch of dictionary entry websites such as this one, a few youtube videos on how to be Photogenic such as [1], an intagram hashtag (WP:UGC) but nothing usefull. Btw this is my first XfD nomination so if I did domething wrong, please notify me. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Merge to Wiktionary, not for Wikipedia. DicDef. Any sources could only speak to the dicdef Fiddle Faddle 10:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to photogenic. 2,000+ views in the past month—people want the info, but agree that enwiki is the wrong place for it. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Portrait photography. There are a few sources around that could be used to add a couple sentences to that article,[2][3] but a standalone article is probably unnecessary. Station1 (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If kept rename to Photogenicity. Probably keep, at that name. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hyperbolick, see wikt:photogenicity. Same argument applies Fiddle Faddle 17:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the contention is we ought not have a Wikipedia page on something with a Wiktionary page, then we are sure to end up getting rid of things like Luminosity and Speed and Beauty, no? All are in Wiktionary. Think I needn’t bother with the links. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Photogenicity" is not a word at dictionary.com or 3 other dictionaries I consulted. Station1 (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: peer-reviewed articles and books either use it as a mundane adjective (not significant coverage) or define it a particular way for the rhetorical purpose of that particular piece. The latter results in multiple definitions, but trying to define all of them does little to help readers. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and lack of "Wikigenicity". A definition and lots of unsourced blather aren't going to cut it. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question: if we have consensus to delete, should closer delete Photogenic (disambiguation) as unneeded? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Further question: are there cross-wiki dabs (to wiktionary, e.g.)? I am very skeptical that anyone searching for "photogenic" cares about Photogenics. So deleting the dab wouldn't seem to serve readers super well. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @AleatoryPonderings: no. Instead, like any other non-existent page, deleted articles and dab pages will have a sidebar encouraging readers to search the sister projects, e.g. the page at quizzacious. Does that answer your question? And does it clarify my reasons for asking about deleting the dab page? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes and yes—thank you! Agree that the dab should go if this article goes. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:24, 13 August 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.