Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Conway Photographic Library


 * 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 redirect to The Courtauld Institute of Art. The "keep" arguments amount to "it's useful" and "it's interesting", which are not policy-based arguments and fail to address the WP:GNG issue. Content can be merged from the history as deemed appropriate.  Sandstein  07:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

The Conway Photographic Library

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No sources are present in the article. Fails WP:GNG. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 02:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC) comment That an article is unreferenced is not ipso facto a reason for deletion; there may be sources. In this case I'm not sure that what I've found suffices to establish notability independant of the Coutauls. However I think that the list of photographers held is useful & much too long (150 entries, most if not all blue link) to lump in with teh Courtauld article, which would suggest a rename and keepTheLongTone (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  03:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Photography,  and United Kingdom. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 02:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect, to The Courtauld Institute of Art. It is already better covered there. SailingInABathTub 🛁 01:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment: There is already a longstanding redirect at Conway Library to the Courtauld article. AllyD (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak delete: I have extended the article text a bit and added references, but am unconvinced these add up to demonstrating specific notability for this collection and particularly for the unreferenced list of those whose photographs are collected there. The existing Conway Library redirect to The_Courtauld_Institute_of_Art lands at a paragraph about this and the Witt Collection. I am inclined to think that is sufficient, but I also see 's case for the photographer list (albeit unreferenced), which (veering towards WP:CRYSTAL / WP:ITSUSEFUL) could become more relevant when the digital images go online. AllyD (talk) 09:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The ongoing story of digitization by volunteers, vs another collection being digitized by a commercial contractor, is interesting. Photo of volunteers, posing outside, which should be added to commons and included and another photo, of volunteers at work, both licensed CC BY-NA 4.0. {I dunno if those links will work for everyone; I am seeing them after coming in through the Wikipedia Library to get the "The Courtauld’s Witt and Conway Photographic Libraries: Two approaches to digitisation" 2020 article by Tom Bilson.  Happy to share PDF of that to anyone who can't figure out how to get it themself.  The collection has almost a million photos; btw it includes T.E. Lawrence's photos of Arabia.  Story of Martin Conway ( (1856–1937), Lord Conway of Allington, first director general of Imperial War Museum) who began collecting it in 1885, partly as "one of his interests was of photography as a record of buildings that might suffer war damage" also interesting.  Much substantial coverage, likely offline, must exist, I think. --Doncram (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to The Courtauld Institute of Art: It definitely exists and has attracted some coverage, but I haven't found enough to suggest that it can't be covered outside of the larger institution. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding on to this, I recognize Doncram's point that this is a large, somewhat significant collection, but I simply think it better covered in the Courtauld Institute's article at the moment. If substantial coverage is dug up and content added so a stand-alone article is merited/necessary, I have no objection to re-splitting out. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:11, 20 September 2022 (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.