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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Month of Photography Asia[edit]

Month of Photography Asia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Questionably notable and improvable as it seems it may not even actually exist anymore (coverage about it seems to end in about 2012) and my searches found nothing better than this, this and then at Singapore news websites Business Times, The New Paper, The Straits Times, Today and InSing (although I found it was simply a local travel guide) as well as AsiaOne where I found the same link listed here. This simply hasn't changed much since starting in September 2010 and there's especially none happening if it's now non-existent and never even got lasting coverage. It also seems obvious this was mostly contributed by the festival people so it almost looks more like a personal webpage rather than a formal encyclopedia article (any more different and promotional and I would've simply speedied). Notifying author Raphaël Millet and past user Lopifalko. SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'll come back to you on this when I get an opportunity. -Lopifalko (talk)

• Comment: Whether it exists now or not seems irrelevant, the point is whether notability is demonstrated. I added a ref from Asian Correspondent, and removed some non-notable details. It reads as a fairly matter-of-fact declaration of the facts of the festival. -Lopifalko (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Considering this has been relisted and I'm not sure how this is going to end either way, I'm notifying photography users Joe Decker, Ukexpat, Dennis Bratland and Donnie Park who may have some insight with this and also DGG who asks to be notified where he can help AfDs with low traffic. SwisterTwister talk 02:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Hoary likewise. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Insufficient basis for notability. In any case the article is worded promotionally, as usually the case for an article for an exhibition that tries to list everyone exhibited. DGG ( talk ) 07:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have cleaned it up more, and addressed DGG's concern over listing everyone exhibited by removing that list, leaving only the solo exhibitions. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Pretty horrible when first nominated; a lot better now, thanks to good work (flab removal, sourcing) by Lopifalko. Presumably created and maintained for promotional purposes, but then this is true of a huge number of articles hereabouts, and the problem is not of how promotional it was but of how promotional it's doomed to be. It's less than stellar now and indeed may deteriorate, but then this is true of well over half of the articles here. Though still not great, sourcing isn't bad and all in all it deserves to live on. -- Hoary (talk) 08:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sufficiently described by independent sources. Now a sufficiently objective description of the event. -Lopifalko (talk) 08:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep now that it's been fixed. I'd suggest going a little further are removing those participants who are not notable enough to have articles of their own, as is usually our practice in such lists. DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 4 December 2015 (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.