Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redeye, The Photography Network


 * 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Redeye, The Photography Network

 * – ( View AfD View log )

There's a lack of substantial 3rd party coverage of the organization. Basic information like how big it is can't be sourced independently. Most sources are just passing mentions. I think the bjp-online.com blog is the best source, and helps, but by itself, it doesn't seem sufficient. Rob (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This organization is already getting over fifty thousand quid a year from the Arts Council, which is even publicly talking about the possibility of giving it more. The Arts Council and similar organizations are not known for their largesse towards photography in Britain (outside London's "Photographers' Gallery", anyway); indeed, the Arts Council even cut all funding to another organization whose long-term work would only weeks later be recognized by UNESCO. The public that directly or indirectly finances the Arts Council may like encyclopedic information on the organizations that the Arts Council benefits. &para; So much for the "public service" rationale for retaining this article. Yes, the article certainly makes unsourced assertions, and these assertions should eventually be either sourced or cut; but it also says enough that is already sourced, and shows enough promise, to merit retention. -- Hoary (talk) 00:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I must say, though, this was and probably still is a crap article. It said that an event Redeye held was praised by Hodgson; it was addressed by Hodgson (who, yes, can be inferred to have praised it). Somebody of no particular obvious importance was said to have called its event "the must attend event of the photographic year" (Really? Ahead of Arles?); er no he didn't, he called it "one of the must attend events of the photographic year". Ah well, this is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", and "WP:CIR" isn't even a guideline, it's a mere essay. &para; Well, crap article or no, some of it is sourced properly, and Joe Taxpayer may like to know where fifty thousand quid went. -- Hoary (talk) 09:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  —Hoary (talk) 09:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.  —Hoary (talk) 09:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  —Hoary (talk) 09:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete. Small organization (only 7,000 members) and notability isn't established by what's in the article today.  PK  T (alk)  20:25, 19 June 2011 (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.