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]

Chess Match

[edit]
Chess Match (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)

Besides one news article covering a short film he was involved in (which I'd argue is passing at best), from my searches, there seems to be no significant coverage of this person. Every source referenced in the article is either a primary source or a passing mention. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG ULPS (talk • contribs) 14:00, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IStabilizer

[edit]
IStabilizer (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)

Most sources for this article are sketchy blogs or no longer exist. Also questionably notable. ThisUserIsAStub (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson: The Last Photo Shoots

[edit]
Michael Jackson: The Last Photo Shoots (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)


The article fails to meet WP:NFILM and WP:GNG despite those starring in the documentary. There appears to be no significant in-depth coverage in independent sources and really only serves as trivia at best. The existing references are press releases or from the distribution company’s website making this seem more WP:PROMO, especially as it appears part of a walled garden project on part of Urbanmusicmix representing another instance of concern regarding WP:COI. MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 July 17. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 03:02, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Music, Photography, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:04, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure - however other sources do exist because there was a lawsuit. I'm leaning towards !delete or redirect to the director, however it's possible that sources can be dug up that meet the inclusion criteria for notability. JMWt (talk) 08:01, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not entirely sure if it was ever actually released or not - as far as I can tell, there was an attempt to release the documentary in 2014, but it was blocked by the lawsuit. It was dismissed in 2018, but it's not clear if it favored the film company or the Jackson estate. Most of the film company's stuff for the film has been abandoned or is long gone, so I'm going to guess that it never released. This means that in order to keep the article we would have to establish that the lawsuit is notable enough for its own article. I'm not entirely certain that the coverage is heavy enough. There was a small flurry of coverage announcing the release and a few places did cover the lawsuit, however most of that is based around the same point in time - stating that a lawsuit has been launched. This and this were two of the better sources I found. It did get some international coverage, but it's kind of light. I am leaning towards this not being notable enough for an article. I do think that it merits mention somewhere. It's listed at the filmography page, so we could add a sentence about the lawsuit and it getting blocked. We could also put a mention of this at Estate of Michael Jackson, as it was specifically the estate that blocked the documentary. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:16, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It looks like the name of the movie is sometimes listed as Michael: The Last Photo Shoots, which makes this stranger. Most of the sources I'm finding on this are related to the lawsuit, so at least this article should be updated to incorporate the lawsuit. I don't know whether Delete or Keep but agreed with other comments that this belongs somewhere, although not sure about whether it deserves its own dedicated article,
Dflovett (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to add a subsection about the lawsuit in the MJ estate article. Offhand the film itself isn't notable but the lawsuit is - just perhaps not enough for its own article. I think we could summarize the lawsuit and a couple of lines about the film itself at the estate article and redirect there. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:54, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, good call. I also neutralized some of the wording in there, including referring to Jackson as "the King of Pop" Dflovett (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Estate_of_Michael_Jackson#Lawsuit. The lawsuit is notable, the film is not. However at the same time, the lawsuit is not really notable for its own article. Since the lawsuit centers around the estate, it makes more sense to cover it in that article. Dflovett, can you review what I've added there? This type of lawsuit isn't really my strong suit, so I want to make sure that I have it all properly summarized. It's actually kind of an interesting lawsuit, as it essentially boils down to a case of someone selling footage that they might not have legally owned. My take on it is that this likely closed with neither side legally owning the footage as no one could definitively prove they owned it. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:24, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks solid to me, other than the weird lingering question over what the name of the movie even was (I keep finding sources that call it Michael: The Last Photo Shoots). Seems good for now though. Dflovett (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm... good point. Offhand it looks like the director and production company used both, but their social media and the now defunct website uses Michael: TLPS as the title. Wayback shows that the last updates for the site were long before 2018, when the lawsuit was dismissed, however the news coverage of the lawsuit uses the shortened title as well.
    My thought is that we use the shortened title as the default (in the lawsuit section) and make mention that it's also sometimes referred to under the longer title. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:41, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good call, I'm aligned! Dflovett (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: The lawsuit is notable, though the movie seems to not be notable, so I’d just merge this article into the article for the lawsuit and add a few lines. Ev0308 (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no article for the lawsuit and honestly, I don't know that the lawsuit itself is intensely notable enough for an article. The news coverage for this tends to center upon the initial announcement of the lawsuit in 2014, then tapers off to where it's really only covered by The Hollywood Reporter with any regularity. I think part of the initial coverage was specifically because it was the Jackson Estate, as it had already received quite a bit of controversy over how the money was being handled, who was to benefit, and so on. I think it makes more sense to cover this in the article akin to how we would for a person or business that regularly receives "look at what they're doing now" type of coverage.
In any case, this is already in the estate article so there's no need to merge anything. The film itself isn't really notable and we have all the information that is needed (director, film company, gist of the footage and documentary). ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:27, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Let'srun (talk) 05:17, 24 July 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=1303353537"