Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old-Time Photography


 * 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. There is a need to review the article title and possibly the best location for the content, but those are things that can be decided through normal editorial processes.  Ty  04:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Old-Time Photography

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The notability of the subject and the manner in which it is presented doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia standards. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Response Please Assume Good Faith before making borderline-patronizing statements about the thought process that some people use to nominate articles. I make an effort to locate proper sources on all of the articles that I put up for AfD -- please don't assume they are thrown here willy-nilly. This article, as written, makes very broad and unsubstantiated claims that are not backed by data, let alone reliable independent sources. Before nominating this article, I could not locate hard data to confirm this is a "popular" activity, let alone a notable one. Plus, you are suggesting to keep the article because it is "probably" notable and there are "almost certainly" sources. Please, if you cannot confirm notability, then state as much. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep probably a notable subject. keep and expand. there are almost certainly sources. The time to nominate for deletion is after you have first looked--making allowance for possible other ways of wording the subject--and failed to find them. DGG (talk) 00:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not intended personally, but I certainly would advocate a rule that one may not nominate for deletion on a question of notability unless one has at least done a preliminary search for material on the subject ad presented the results as at least a link to google or a statement that some relevant source had been searched. See the template Template:Prod-nn for one way people are doing this. As it is, many people do say something in the nomination about what & where they have searched. DGG (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep . This is a lousy article on a notable genre of popular modern photography. --Dhartung | Talk 07:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Dhartung, I see you've added one good book with this exact title as a reference. Is it the standard term? should the article be moved to the alternate term you added to the article when you improved it? DGG (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My assessment is that "old-time photography" is the public-facing term and "antique and amusement photography" is the professional-context term. At least judging from the ads. --Dhartung | Talk 07:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The only other term that seems in use is simply "antique photography", but that has search term overlap with both collectors of actual antique equipment used in photography as well as of the photos themselves. --Dhartung | Talk 08:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Change vote to merge, possibly to portrait photography. We have no article on photography genres, or generally on studio photography, that I can find. Basically there are numerous trivial references and it's clearly a popular genre, even spawning a professional organization, but there are not many secondary sources treating it in any depth. --Dhartung | Talk 08:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd rather keep it out of there, though it could be merged to an article on other jokey portrait styles, posing with cut-outs, head-through-the-hole & so on. Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per keepers above. The title was new to me, but I wouldn't know what else to call it. Johnbod (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2008 (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.