Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iconic Photograph


 * 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. L Faraone  00:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Iconic Photograph

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm sorry but this is the sort of original research magnet whose content is entirely subjective as description of things that the author likes. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  21:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  21:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. I have concerns about the current version of the page but I don't think they're insurmountable. (The definition is uncited, the article is overly reliant on a single source, the title shouldn't have a capital "p".) Contrary to the nominator's assertion, the article is not a WP:ILIKEIT but a critical discussion of a phenomenon, citing scholarly research. We have an article on cultural icons in general so why not an article on cultural icons that are photographs? Dricherby (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:No original research is a core policy and it cannot be ignored in this way. An article of this kind needs to meet the criteria of Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists, not made up criteria. For example, Category:Photographs contains photos that meet the notability criteria, and based on this, a List of photographs could be made. What Iconic Photograph does is substitute WP:Notability criteria with original research and a grab bag of varying opinions about why this or that critic thinks a photo was important. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The article isn't a list of photographs that are claimed to be iconic so it doesn't need to meet any list-based criteria. It's an article about the concept of the iconic photograph and how that interacts with culture and society. Dricherby (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * To me it looks like a list pretending to be something else. The "concept of the iconic photograph" here is original research. Take away the original research, and you have a set (or list) of photos which are famous, or important, or "iconic". Here on Wikipedia, "iconic" means WP:Notable. The semantic shuffle is an obstacle to understanding why this article is a problem. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a list at all. There are three examples named and only two of those pictured. There are more distinct sources quoted (four) than there are example photographs. A disguised list would be written as "Photograph A is iconic because of XYZ; Photograph B is iconic because of LMN; Photograph C..." but this is written as "Iconic photos do XYZ" with a couple of examples illustrating these points." Given that there are four sources, I don't think it's original research, either. Dricherby (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The presence of some sources somewhere in the article doesn't address the lack of sources for the central assertions of the article. Is there a single photograph with a Wikipedia article about it that isn't "iconic"? As in, famous? Recognisable, an important event, evokes a response, has been often reproduced. Or as we say, "notable". That's why I think this is just a recapitulation of the criteria for notability. Another approach to that, if not a list of photographs, is a navbox or infobox that could be added to the articles about photographs.Since much of Iconic Photograph is about the opinions of Robert Hariman, the section of the article Robert Hariman that deals with his definition of "iconic" could be expanded. Or a new article No Caption Needed could be written, expanding further on the ideas contained in his book. There are several viable options here. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete hopelessly unencyclopedic. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete it is not difficult to see the definition of this phrase stemmed from the No Caption Needed: Iconic Photographs... book. The book seems to be non-notable. Putting the adjective "Iconic" and the noun "photograph" together doesn't make a sound basis for an encyclopedia article - it's rather like having an article about "Beautiful paintings" - subjective and very hard to define. Sionk (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.