Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lighting designer


 * 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.  → Call me  Hahc  21  00:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Lighting designer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced since 2007. Nothing but how-to, babbling, OR, and dicdef. If there's an article on this subject, this ain't it. WP:TNT and start over if you have to; otherwise redirect to Wiktionary. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 09:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose: While it may need some trimming and MOS work, there's too much there to just throw it away. I imagine most of the sourcing can be done from the external links. Barring a finding of outright wholesale copyvio, I'd say keep and fix – it's much easier than starting from scratch. —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 10:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve. An easy WP:GNG pass. Source examples include entire books devoted to the topic:
 * Stage Lighting Design: The Art, the Craft, the Life
 * Stage Lighting Design: A Practical Design
 * A Practical Guide to Stage Lighting
 * The lighting art: the aesthetics of stage lighting design
 * Stage lighting design in Britain
 * Scene Design and Stage Lighting
 * – NorthAmerica1000 11:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - the article is absolutely terrible; basically just someone's big WP:OR essay. Probably only the lede and a few lines here and there are actually about relevant things that could be sourced. That said, the topic is clearly notable - lighting design is a notable part of theatre, television, movie and event production (though this only seems to deal with stage/theatre). I'd be comfortable with a WP:TNT deletion (as suggested) provided we had someone willing to commit to a re-write. I do think the topic should be covered on WP and it would be a shame to see it red-linked. Stalwart 111  11:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep The article needs a rewrite, but I'm not entirely sure that we need to blow it up and start over. That's a bit of a gamble that somebody will come along and write a new article; if nobody does, we're left with red links. Novusuna talk 16:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep:far from beibg a satisfactory article, but for all that it is a reasonable account of what a lighting designer does & how they go about it. The subject itself is clearly notable.TheLongTone (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2014 (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.