Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Photography

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Photography. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Photography|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Photography. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Visual arts.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch



Photography

[edit]

Rasha Amin

[edit]
Rasha Amin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recently deleted tagging WP:COI WP:RS & WP:GNG. Delete and Salt. AndySailz (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sascha Fonseca

[edit]
Sascha Fonseca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable photographer. Page was created by a single-purpose account with a clear COI (and who claims to be the subject himself). A WP:BEFORE search doesn't provide much information, and there isn't any evidence of notability from reliable sources. Fails WP:PHOTOGRAPHER. CycloneYoris talk! 09:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – I respectfully disagree with the assertion that the subject is "non-notable."
As a wildlife photographer, I have received significant **international recognition**, including:
  • Winner of the People’s Choice Award at the Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition, hosted by the Natural History Museum — one of the world’s most prestigious institutions in the field of natural history and photography.
  • Featured and interviewed by numerous independent, reliable international media outlets, including the BBC, CNN, Forbes, National Geographic, The Guardian, Smithsonian Magazine, and others.
  • Just days ago, my work was profiled in a full-length feature by the Süddeutsche Zeitung[1] — a leading German newspaper and an established reliable source under WP:RS.
  • My images are actively used by the WWF, the Snow Leopard Trust, and the Amur Tiger Center for conservation, education, and fundraising purposes.
While I acknowledge that the article was created with a conflict of interest, I have fully disclosed my identity on my user page and within this discussion. I have taken care to follow Wikipedia’s guidelines on neutrality and verifiability, and have cited only independent, third-party sources.
Based on the coverage and recognition outlined above, the subject clearly meets the criteria under WP:CREATIVE and WP:PHOTOGRAPHER, and I believe the article serves encyclopedic value and public interest. SaFo wiki (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sascha Fonseca meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria as a widely published and internationally recognized wildlife :photographer, particularly known for pioneering DSLR and mirrorless camera trap photography of elusive big cats such :as snow leopards, Amur leopards, and Siberian tigers.
1. Significant Independent Media Coverage:
Fonseca’s work has been featured in reputable, independent outlets including:
• Condé Nast, BBC, NatGeo, WWF
• Leading newspapers Telegraph, The Guardian, Süddeutsche Zeitung
This coverage demonstrates clear notability under WP:BIO and WP:GNG standards.
2. Prestigious Awards and Exhibitions:
• Winner in the Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition by the Natural History Museum in London – one of :the most competitive and globally recognized photography contests.
• His now-iconic image of a wild snow leopard at sunset was shared by major conservation groups and widely :praised.
• Exhibitions include the UN Headquarters in New York, the Xposure International Photography Festival (UAE), and :global wildlife platforms.
3. Conservation Impact and Public Engagement:
Fonseca’s work raises awareness about endangered species and supports conservation through visuals rarely captured in the wild. His photos are used in research and education, and he regularly gives talks and participates in outreach.
4. Reliable Sources Exist and Can Be Added:
There is ample coverage available from independent third-party sources. If the article lacks inline citations, it can and should be improved—not deleted.
5. COI / Tone Issues Are Fixable:
If concerns exist around neutrality or conflict of interest, the appropriate step is to improve tone and structure—not removal. Wikipedia welcomes editing improvements and collaboration rather than erasure of notable subjects.
Conclusion:
Fonseca clearly meets the inclusion criteria. Deletion would remove a notable figure in modern wildlife photography from Wikipedia and disregard available documentation of his accomplishments. I strongly recommend keeping and improving the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaFo wiki (talk • contribs) 10:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC) — SaFo wiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note to closing admin: SaFo wiki (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]
his accomplishments So now you are not Fonseca?
But on your userpage you claimed to be him. I am Sascha Fonseca
Also, are your responses written using AI / a large language model? If a newspaper used one of your photos that is not coverage of you. Polygnotus (talk) 10:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am Sascha Fonseca. SaFo wiki (talk) 12:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Polygnotus: Yes, I confirm that I am Sascha Fonseca, and all my edits and replies have been written by me personally — not using AI or automated tools. The references cited in the article are not just for my photos, but for published interviews, tutorials and features where my work and career are covered independently by reliable sources. SaFo wiki (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also apparently https://www.sueddeutsche.de/projekte/artikel/gesellschaft/schneeleopard-fotograf-e865408/?reduced=true per above. WP:GNG seems to be met, even if the article is very promotional and needs to be worked over -- the only issue is sustained coverage, but the articles above were written in 2022, 2023, and 2025. So it does seem sustained over a couple years at least. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CycloneYoris: Labelling someone a “non-notable photographer” without fairly evaluating the sources is not only dismissive, but also contrary to Wikipedia’s spirit of neutrality and evidence-based discussion. The article includes coverage from multiple independent, reliable publications — including a full-length profile in Süddeutsche Zeitung (one of Germany’s leading newspapers), and features in Condé Nast Traveller, Smithsonian Magazine, and Nature TTL.
I was awarded the People’s Choice Award at the Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition hosted by the Natural History Museum, selected from 39,000 images, with over 60,000 public votes. That alone is widely covered and meets notability per WP:PHOTOGRAPHER and WP:CREATIVE.
Yes, I created the article and have declared my COI transparently. But dismissing a subject solely on that basis while ignoring strong sources and international recognition contradicts the principles of WP:NPOV and WP:AGF.
I welcome constructive feedback — but not characterizations that ignore facts or contributions made in good faith. 91.73.1.255 (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“Keep – The subject is a recognized figure in wildlife photography with demonstrated international reach and peer acknowledgment. A brief look at his public presence shows he is followed by leading National Geographic photographers, reflecting credibility and relevance within the professional community. This clearly supports notability under WP:CREATIVE and WP:PHOTOGRAPHER.” 94.252.73.210 (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“Keep – The subject is a recognized figure in wildlife photography with demonstrated international reach and peer acknowledgment. A brief look at his public presence shows he is followed by leading National Geographic photographers, reflecting credibility and relevance within the professional community. This clearly supports notability under WP:CREATIVE and WP:PHOTOGRAPHER.” Goldschmidt.lux (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.sueddeutsche.de/projekte/artikel/gesellschaft/schneeleopard-fotograf-e865408/
Specifically in regards to WP:PHOTOGRAPHER Foncesca would meet the criteria "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews," with regards to the snow leopard photo, which all of these articles are about I think. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'm not convinced that this article meets WP:PHOTOGRAPHER or even WP:GNG. It may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, because the only reliable source I'm seeing with significant coverage is Conde Nast. I also have a problem with the COI. I think the subject can wait until more sources become available.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm just starting to look into the sources and I've already found two that are advertorials, not articles providing significant coverage. These are Native Advertising, in other words, WP:ADMASQ advertisements mascarading as news/journalism sources. World Art News is a promotional service platform that anyone can submit their work to for publication, at a fee; its pay to play, proven by their "About" description, Engage with this diverse audience through our promotional services. and Advertise with World Art News: Publish your Art, Press Release, Story and News and Additionally, we serve as a publisher, offering advertising, press releases, and other promotional services tailored to the affluent art community. all of which then link to the page that says for $99 Getting Started is Easy! My Modern Met is also an advertising platform mascarading as an art magazine or trade journal. Are you an artist, designer or photographer who'd like to have your work featured on My Modern Met? Did you see something interesting or inspiring that you think others might enjoy? Do you want to share it with the rest of the world? Great! Here's how: It's promotional click-bait, not serious art historical/art critical journalism. I am holding off !voting for now until I can take a deeper dive into the sources, but this is looking alot like WP:PROMO, and the COI is problematic. So far it seems like the subject is simply doing his job as a commercial photographer, like thousands of others. Netherzone (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not a commercial photographer — this is my personal passion and not my profession. I pursue wildlife photography independently, not for advertising or profit, and do not promote or sell products or services.
    I understand concerns about source reliability, and I agree that not all media outlets carry the same editorial weight. I’ve been working to improve the article by adding coverage from more established publications (e.g. Süddeutsche Zeitung, Nature TTL) and am open to feedback on further strengthening it with reliable, independent sources. 91.73.1.255 (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    91.73.1.255, please log in if you are @SaFo wiki Sascha Fonseca. Thanks for clarification. Unfortunately I'm unable to read the Süddeutsche Zeitung without paying for a subscription. Perhaps there is another link? The Nature TTL citation is a tutorial you wrote yourself, so therefore not an independent source. Nature TTL seems to be something different than the British scientific journal Nature. The Forbes piece seems to be based off a press release. A question for you, if you are Sascha, are any of your photographs held in the permanent collections of notable museums or national galleries? If so could you please add links here that would verify that? It might help establishing notability per WP:NARTIST. BTW, I'm sorry if it feels like there is a lot of scrutiny going on in the deletion process, but this is just how the encyclopedia determines what is notable or not, based on it's own inclusion criteria that's been developed over the years through consensus. It may be helpful and of interest for you to read this content guideline: WP:AUTOBIO and also this essay: Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, as it's really difficult to be objective if one is personally connected to the subject of an article. Netherzone (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Netherzone: Thanks for your message. Yes, I’m Sascha Fonseca and have declared my COI. The Süddeutsche Zeitung article is paywalled because it’s a premium profile — I believe the fact that it’s behind a paywall reflects the value of the content, not a lack of coverage. I understand the Nature TTL piece is self-authored and will look to add more independent sources. While my work isn’t in permanent museum collections, it has been exhibited at the UN, Xposure, and other international venues. Appreciate the engagement. 91.73.1.255 (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please log in, it's confusing to other editors if you are contributing from both an IP address and with a user name. Also, the IP address reveals personal information that you may not want to be made public on this forum. Netherzone (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Netherzone: Noted. But let’s focus on the content and sources, not which account I happened to be using. I’m here in good faith — that’s what matters. 91.73.1.255 (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep: covered in NPR [1] and People.com [2] Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And Conde Nast India [3]. The photo of the snow leopard appears well-documented. Oaktree b (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The NPR and People pieces are almost identical, and seem to be based on the same press release. The Condé Nast piece is better. Might this be a case of WP:BLP1E or WP:TOOSOON? The photographs are exceptionally beautiful. Netherzone (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's featured in NPR, [4], ExplorersWeb, [5] the Natural History Museum (London), [6] the BBC, [7] MyModernMet [8] along with others, mostly due to his awards won which still qualifies as notability and substantial recognition, as per option 3 ("... In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews") in the WP:PHOTOGRAPHER guidelines. Additionally, he is featured on the Xposure exhibition's website for participating in the event, [9] which in my opinion seems to secure WP:PHOTOGRAPHER. In conclusion, I think that this is enough to qualify for WP:GNG and WP:PHOTOGRAPHER (for the photographer part, I believe that it specifically follows options 3 and 4 for notability) and that the article should hence be kept. One Hop2482 (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Visual arts. Netherzone (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regarding the sources - The more closely I examine the sources, they really seem to be the work of Public Relations PR Promo, that is based on this press release: [10], per this disclosure Compiled and prepared by Malik Merchant from (1) Press Release issued on February 9, 2023, by Wildlife Photographer of the Year (WPY), which is developed and produced by the Natural History Museum (NHM), London; (2) Media Kit that Simergphotos was provided access to by the NHM; and (3) Jay Sullivan’s informative article published on the NHM website. The press release issued on Feb. 9, 2023 by the NHM is here: [11] Many of the sources in the article and found online in a BEFORE are not independent journalism, they are iterations of the press release(s). Between that and the pay-to-play Native advertising or Advertorials, listicles, blogs and primary sources I'm leaning more towards D*eletion, per WP:PROMO, however I'm not !voting yet since I'm still trying to find THREE fully independent, secondary reliable sources that provide significant coverage that is not based on the press release. Netherzone (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Netherzone: These claims are incorrect and frankly dismissive. The article includes multiple independent sources — *Süddeutsche Zeitung*, *Smithsonian Magazine*, *Condé Nast Traveller*, *The Guardian* — none of which are PR or pay-to-play. To call this a promo piece based on a single press release is reductive and ignores the broader context.
    If the standard here is three independent, reliable sources, that bar has already been met — and exceeded. I'm happy to improve formatting, but mischaracterizing this as marketing is simply not accurate. 91.73.91.130 (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not dismissive. You had requested more focus on the sources, and this is my analysis. It's not personal, and I'm not dismissing you or your work, which I find to be quite beautiful. I was commenting on the fact that when examined and actually read closely, it's quite clear that most of them, including the Smithsonian and The Guardian are directly based on the press release/media kit that was compiled and prepared by Malik Merchant from (1) Press Release issued on February 9, 2023, by Wildlife Photographer of the Year (WPY), which is developed and produced by the Natural History Museum (NHM), London; (2) Media Kit that Simergphotos was provided access to by the NHM ; and (3) Jay Sullivan’s informative article published on the NHM website. [12] Malik Merchant owns Simergphotos and Simerg.com, so it seems that they were doing the public relations work. Regarding pay to play PR, My Modern Met and World Art News are essentially mills for native advertising. Netherzone (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: Besides the COI, this photographer stands out as having significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. However Wikipedia discourages the COI contributions. AndySailz (talk) 08:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @AndySailz: Thank you for the fair assessment. I fully acknowledge the COI and have declared it transparently from the beginning. My only goal here is to ensure the subject is evaluated based on verifiable coverage and not dismissed due to authorship alone. I welcome collaboration from neutral editors to further improve the article. Appreciate your balanced view. — SaFo wiki (talk) SaFo wiki (talk) 07:02, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is an Wikipedia:Autobiography created by a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account and I think it should be deleted as WP:TNT. As it stands, it will forever have the {{Autobiography|date=May 2025}} tag. The source cited in the lede is https://xposure.net/photographer/sascha-fonseca/ which is pure puffery. While Wikipedia guidelines state "don't bite the newbies" and "Assume Good Faith", the editor/subject is clearly not listening WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Their talk page and this AFD are littered with editors trying to explain that the best move is to stop editing the autobiography, yet they keep editing. The photographer/subject should wait for a neutral source editor to create an article. It is in the subject's best interest to have this vanity article go away. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @WomenArtistUpdates: I understand the concerns. I’ve disclosed my COI and welcome neutral editors to improve the article. My intent was never vanity, just accuracy. Some sources may be stronger than others, but several are independent and reliable. Open to constructive suggestions. — SaFo wiki (talk) SaFo wiki (talk) 07:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - After an exhaustive BEFORE search I have found that all of the sources (except maybe one) are based on the same press release and media kit provided by the organization that issued the non-notable award and an associated PR firm. The sources in the citations are Churnalism, and/or Native advertising (pay-to-play) and/or possibly Advertorials, or are non-independent primary sources that do not count towards notability. The article is clearly WP:PROMO, and based on a thorough analysis of the sources it does not meet either WP:GNG nor WP:PHOTOGRAPHER. The photographs are beautiful though, and his creative process is interesting; this !vote is not a criticism of his work itself. Netherzone (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Netherzone: I respectfully disagree with your assessment. Describing the Wildlife Photographer of the Year – People’s Choice Award (hosted by the Natural History Museum) as “non-notable” is not accurate. This competition is globally recognized, highly selective, and judged by expert panels. My image was selected from nearly 39,000 entries and voted the favorite by over 60,000 members of the public — that speaks to its impact.
    Moreover, many sources cited are not based on a press release. The Süddeutsche Zeitung published a full-length profile in May 2025 — a leading German newspaper and a reliable source under WP:RS. Condé Nast Traveller India, The Guardian, and Nature TTL all independently covered my work. Additionally, I was featured in Emirates Airline’s Open Skies Magazine back in 2019 — well before any recent awards, clearly disproving the idea that coverage is solely tied to one event.
    I fully acknowledge my COI and have declared it transparently. I’m also open to improving formatting and citations. However, deletion — despite the presence of multiple independent, reliable sources — would disregard significant coverage and misrepresent notability standards under WP:PHOTOGRAPHER and WP:GNG.
    Let’s improve where needed, but let’s not erase valid contributions. Thank you. SaFo wiki (talk) 07:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    the Natural History Museum is well known, but that does not mean their People's Choice award is Wiki-notable, nor do you inherit notability from the museum's "brand". Many organizations give out awards based on visitors/viewers opinions - it's called audience engagement. Popularity is not the same as notability. The People's Choice Prize is like entering your work in a juried show, not an art historically significant curated show. Notable awards for artists are things like the Guggenheim Fellowship, the Guggenheim International Award, MacArthur Fellowship, a Royal Photographic Society award, the KAIROS prize, etc. Showing a photo at the UN is not the same as getting a Nobel Prize! We are not seeing any Wiki-notable exhibitions either; a notable exhibition (per WP) would be the Venice Biennale, Documenta, Carnegie International, the Whitney Biennial, a one person show at the Pompidou Center or the Tate Museum.
    Forgive me for saying this so directly, but you are inflating the importance of your accomplishments – precisely because of your COI – you are too connected to your own career to be objective and neutral. You are right to be proud of your work, but please read WP:PROUD. Of course your accomplishments are important to you, and I'm truly happy for you that your work is getting publicity and gaining popularity, but popularity and publicity are not the same as notability here; it is simply not the right place for you-or-a-PR firm, to promote your work. The sources are clones of the PR press release/media kit, it's Churnalism not fully independent coverage. I'm sorry if that is not the answer you would like to hear. Netherzone (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is similar to a WP:ONEEVENT. He's primarily known for one photo/set of photos, which really aren't even notable enough to get their own article. Needs more time to cook and develop a broader reputation or as a WP:ARTIST be collected/analyzed broadly to be notable. Jahaza (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is simply not accurate. There are at least two iconic photographs that have independently won high-level international awards and were published in separate books — Remembering Tigers and Remembering Leopards. Several other works have received broad recognition, including a feature in The Telegraph, a full-page story in Emirates Open Skies Magazine, and international exhibitions. My snow leopard image was featured during the UN’s official Snow Leopard Day event in New York — a fact supported by extensive photo documentation and media coverage, though not yet linked in the article.
    This is not a case of WP:ONEEVENT. The photos cited go well beyond a single viral moment or contest win. Moreover, the article reflects a growing, consistently recognized body of work across reputable sources. For context, there are several wildlife photographers currently on Wikipedia with far less coverage or award history. I appreciate the scrutiny, but I believe this meets the standard for notability under WP:ARTIST and WP:BIO. SaFo wiki (talk) 08:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

[edit]
  • Add categories here using the {{cl|CATEGORY}} template

Images

[edit]

Templates

[edit]
  • Add templates here using the {{tl|TEMPLATE}} template

Proposed deletion

[edit]

Add articles whose deletion is proposed (articles that are "prodded") here.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Photography&oldid=1292961307"