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 merge to Railfan#Railway photography. Sandstein 19:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Digital manipulation in railway photography[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While this is a subject which is easy to find mentions of in reliable sources ('this is a picture of a train but it's been altered', 'someone was disqualified from a train photo competition for using photoshop') I can't see that it's a subject which has received significant and specific coverage. We don't even have a dedicated article for railway photography, so I don't see why we have an article on this aspect of it. Anything relevant can be discussed at the linked section. Sam Walton (talk) 11:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Don't miss the suggestions for a merge made by Jim.henderson (talk · contribs) on both the talk page of this article, and Railfan. Here and here. He suggests this content be merged into a new Railway photography article. Elzbenz (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move and merge Jim has now commented below. I agree with his recommendation. Elzbenz (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep As the nominator notes, " this is a subject which is easy to find mentions of in reliable sources". This is also (and still) a hot topic within the railway press, for the reasons discussed in the article. If there's a lack of a dedicated article at railway photography, then the fix for that is to write that, not to delete others. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Trivial mentions aren't enough to sustain an article; can you show some reliable sources that are dedicated to discussing this topic? I couldn't find anything that wouldn't also turn up if you searched for "digital manipulation in [other thing that exists] photography". Sam Walton (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect with a couple of (inline) references this could be a section in Photo manipulation. It's decently written content, but probably better suited for a photography related article.009o9 (talk) A subsection in Railway photography (per above) also looks like a good place to merge to. 009o9 (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While "mentions" are easy to find, there is no significant coverage of the topic. The history can be restored if someone is interested in creating a separate railway photography article. --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 17:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move and merge. It's got enough solid refs for a section; just not for an article. So, move to Railway photography which for some time has been a redirect to the Railfan subsection about photography, and cut & paste that subsection into the new article's intro. Jim.henderson (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Railfan#Railway photography like suggested. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As a graphic design professional, I have never heard of a separate school just for railway photography manipulation, but after looking closely at the example photographs, my suggestion is to rename this article " REEEEEEEALLY BAD PHOTOSHOPPING" MiracleMat (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Railfan#Railway photography as suggested. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete, no evidence of meeting WP:GNG. GregorB (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.