Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Photo Researchers


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  19:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Photo Researchers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seven-year old completely unreferenced stub with only one wick and few constructive (as in expanding the content) edits (all of them are minor changes, and none added sources). As for the subject itself, a GS brings up no secondary sources except this news article reporting the merge with Science Source (which isn't mentioned in the article at all). GNS returns no news articles covering the subject enough. GSS returns nothing usable either, at least that I could access. (GS=Google Search, GNS=Google News Search, GSIS=Google Scholar Search). Verdict:Unremarkable company stub consisting entirely of OR. Hop on Bananas (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note:This debate has been included in the list of list of Photography-related deletion discussions.Hop on Bananas (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note:This debate has been included in the list of list of Business-related deletion discussions.Hop on Bananas (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note:This debate has been included in the list of list of New York-related deletion discussions.Hop on Bananas (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 29.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 20:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as I found no better signs of better improvement. SwisterTwister   talk  04:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 02:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed that the article itself is outdated. When it was written in 2008, Photo Researchers and Science Source were independent stock agencies (although the latter was owned by the former). They have since merged, as the linked news article explains. That's why the merge isn't mentioned. Also:

"The company was founded by Peter Schults in his apartment on Manhattan's East 57th Street. At first running the business from his home, Mr. Schults amassed one of the largest collections of travel photography, covering many rare and exotic locations and cultures. To this day, if you pick up a book on geography or cultural anthropology or an atlas published between the 1950s and 1970s you are pretty much guaranteed to see Photo Researchers as a major photo source."

A quick Google Books (henceforth GBS) search reveals this, but of course, if no reliable sources state this directly, it cannot be in the article. Anyway, the GBS got nothing but endless zoology, ecology, geography, anthropology etc. books using photos from it/listing it in the photo credits, which is...not a good sign. I wouldn't be surprised if the Wikipedia article is the only source covering Photo Researchers in existence. (The news article I linked, and maybe others (especially on stock photography news sites) cover the merge, but this one might be the only source about the agency specifically. Some of the news articles I mentioned might explain the history of PR, but this might as well be the only source covering the agency itself and not the merge.

- Hop on Bananas (talk) 20:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 04:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Can't we just delete this since it obviously fails WP:NOTABILITY? Hop on Bananas (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.  The book notes: "Photo Researchers, Inc., 60 E. 56th St., New York NY 10022. (212) 758-3420. President: Robert Zentmaier. Computer-controlled agency for hundreds of photographers including the National Audubon Society Collection. Clients include ad agencies and publishers of textbooks, encyclopedias, film-strips, trade books, magazines, newspapers, calendars, greeting-cards, posters, and annual reports in US and foreign markets. Rarely buys outright; works on 50% stock sales and 30% assignments. General price range: $75-7,500. Submit model release with photo. Query with description of work, type of equipment used and subject matter available; arrange a personal interview to show portfolio; or submit portfolio for review. Reports in 1 month maximum. SASE. Subject Needs: All aspects of natural history and science; human nature (especially children and young adults 6-18 engaged in everyday activity); industry; 'people doing what they do'; and pretty scenics to informational photos, particularly model-released people photos and property photos such as houses, ..."  The article notes: "The Indiana University graduate, who has a degree in fine arts, gravitated five years ago to Photo Researchers, a 36-year-old stock photo agency representing over 2,000 of the world's best photographers. As the company's marketing and permissions director, Ms. Duncan deals with some of the world's largest publishing companies and advertising agencies and handles the company's trade shows. It is she who grants permission to publish pictures secured from her company and to set fees for their use. ... Photo Researchers provides photographs for hundreds of advertisers, publishers, corporations, even individuals. ... Photo Researchers boasts 60,000 images in its Science Source and its 500,000-image Nature Source is The National Audubon Society Collection. In it is the famous Tom McHugh Collection, along with the best work from over 300 established nature photographers. These days, Ms. Duncan is busy captioning 10,000 photos and indexing them for Kodak's Picture Exchange." <li> The article notes: "Reports on Photo Researchers founder Peter Schults' sale of his majority interest in the agency to Robert Zentmaier and Bug Sutton, who have managed the operation and owned a minority interest for the past several years. Reason behind Schults' decision; Number of employees at the company; Number of photographers represented; Organizational structure."</li> <li> The book notes: "In the mid-seventies Peter Schults, the founder of Photo Researchers, an agency in New York that represented Barry's photographic work, began representing his literary work as well.'" This source provides trivial coverage, so I am not using it to establish notability, but am listing it here because it can be used to verify information in the article.</li> <li> The article notes: "[Jane S. Kinne] was one of the founding members of Photo Researchers, a stock photo agency at which she worked and served as president for almost 30 years." This source provides trivial coverage, so I am not using it to establish notability, but am listing it here because it can be used to verify information in the article.</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Photo Researchers to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)</li></ul>

If the subject is, in fact, notable, it needs citations like the ones you linked. In fact I think it needs to be rewritten entirely. Hop on Bananas (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable and fails WP:GNG. Appears to be SPAM. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  16:16, 24 November 2015 (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.