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 no consensus. Overall, though the trend is towards keep as the article was being edited. Can be renominated if still considered problematic in the current state.  Sandstein  20:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transphotographiques[edit]

Transphotographiques (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)

A search for English language sources only came up with WP:ROUTINE mentions; no in depth coverage found. NE Ent 01:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article makes no claim on behalf of the subject for encyclopedic notability. English language coverage appears to be run of the mill. Subject appears to fail both WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. More broadly the article fails WP:V. Am open to reconsideration if better reliable source coverage (possibly in French?) is uncovered. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have added references from The Daily Telegraph, Le Figaro, Le Monde, Libération and Chanel. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Changing !vote based on improvements made in the article and sourcing. However while the number of sources has increased sharply, I am generally unimpressed by their overall quality. Most are little more than a paragraph and I am not seeing much in the form of "in depth" coverage called for by the guidelines. Broadly speaking I think the coverage could be described as shallow and run of the mill. Still I think there is enough, if only barely, to give the benefit of the doubt. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The lengthier articles of those used are these, Ad Orientem: 'From Classic to Transphotographiques', 'In Lille, Clashes over Palestine', 'On Nature, and the Nature of Photography', 'Fashion shows his photographs in Lille', 'Territory and Landscape hollow to Transphotographiques', 'Kolekcja Transphotographiques'. -Lopifalko (talk) 05:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm the one who (inadvertantly) brought this one to NE Ent's attention, after stumbling upon in whilst Random page patrolling. Anyway, if I was braver, I would have nominated it for AfD myself. In any case, I'll just go with "delete, as per Ad Orientem", but add that I fear this article may also be a covert attempt at promotion of the subject matter using Wikipedia as the vehicle. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable. Kierzek (talk) 02:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although some additional effort has been made as to improving the article, I still do not see it as something that rises to the level of depth and importance to have a stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I found nothing better than this, this and this. Feel free to draft and userfy, SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: 1. But SisterTwister, your (or anyone's) citing of "this, this and this" is meaningless to anybody else, thanks to our wildly differing filter bubbles. Yes, it does seem that there's not so much on the web about Transphotographiques, but that isn't the way to demonstrate it. ¶ 2. Hmm, interesting subject, Transphotographiques. Let's see what we can find about it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Started as a wonky translation of a feeble article at fr:Wikipedia, nominated for deletion as such; since then quite transformed by Lopifalko. (I wonder what NE Ent, IJBall, Kierzek and SwisterTwister think.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC) ... PS and Ad Orientem too. (Sorry for the accidental omission.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I know I lack the skill set to evaluate French language sources and was unable to find English languages sources that indicate notability. NE Ent 10:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Does The Daily Telegraph mention even do that? – Does being included in a list of international photography festivals get you a wikipedia page?... I guess I'm still not seeing what's so particularly notable about this festival that it should be included in an encyclopedia. What do the French references say?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Google Translate is your friend IJBall. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It now has plenty of refs that demonstrate coverage year-after-year in various notable national broadsheet newspapers (plus Chanel thrown in for good measure!). -Lopifalko (talk) 11:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Bulk and quality are of course only loosely correlated; the mere fact that this article now has about four times as many bytes as it did immediately before the AfD template was added to it does not prove that it's better. However, it certainly is very different now from how it was then. And since Lopifalko mentioned the addition of sources in Le Monde, Libération, and others, it has come to cite additional sources (going well beyond mere mentions) in Le Soir, La Voix du Nord and more. -- Hoary (talk) 02:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The article now has close to six times as many bytes as it did immediately before deletion was proposed. Again, this simple fact does not imply that it's better, let alone that it's six times better. But it certainly is different. I've a hunch that there's enough material about the subject in Polish alone to demonstrate Wikipedia-style notability; but I don't read Polish and (except for extremely limited purposes) don't trust Google Translate or similar. ¶ I note that NE Ent proposed (above) that the article should be deleted because A search for English language sources only came up with WP:ROUTINE mentions; no in depth coverage found. This is ambiguous: Does it mean that no in depth coverage in English was found, or that none in any language was found? If the former, I hadn't been aware that this was a reason for deletion. If the latter, here's a tip: Go to Transphotographiques' what's-on-this-website page, and for each year's festival, click "Presse" (which as you may guess is French for "press"). You'll see lots of press tearsheets. There's very little in English, for some reason. (I can speculate why not, but this isn't the place.) Now, in general it's undesirable to cite sources as they are reproduced within the website of a company, person, festival etc that benefits from these: they may have been adulterated or mocked up. ¶ Worse, this website is rather crappy, with dud links (links that when clicked don't lead anywhere), and META NAME="Keywords" whose "content" includes nu, charme, glamour [...] nude, [...] lingerie, [...] lingerie, nu, [...] nude, [...] fille, [...] girl, [...] nu, [...] erotisme, femme, corps, [...] glamour, nu, nue, nude, photos, fille -- and that's their repetition, not mine. Possibly search engines infer, reasonably enough, that the whole enterprise is spammy and therefore kick its content down the hitlist -- and anyway, text within JPEGs can't be indexed. ¶ Regardless of the quality of the website surrounding them, we do have plenty of JPEGs of newspaper articles. I suggest that a festival whose website dared fake newspaper content (substituting words, misattributing, creating out of whole cloth) would soon find itself in deep doodoo indeed, and thus that these JPEGs are pretty trustworthy. Anyway, the article now has a fair number of sources that are independent of the website. ¶ NE Ent later added the comment I know I lack the skill set to evaluate French language sources and was unable to find English languages sources that indicate notability. I wonder why somebody unable to evaluate French language sources would nominate for deletion an article the majority of whose sources are likely to be in French, and why, realizing that there are indeed what appear to be sources in French, this person would continue to object to the article on the grounds that sources in English couldn't be found. -- Hoary (talk) 08:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC) ........typo fixed Hoary (talk) 00:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Question for NE Ent. The article now has almost ten times as many bytes as it did immediately before you, NE Ent, nominated it for deletion because "no in depth coverage found". (Not that this necessarily means that it's better. Please judge its improvement, if any, for yourself.) Well, here are the hits that Google finds for Transphotographiques in just a single newspaper, La Voix du Nord. Now, "other crap exists" is famously an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, but permit me to ask a question. In your opinion, how does the Transphotographiques article now stack up against, say, the article on Belvoir Media Group? -- Hoary (talk) 06:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As stated above, the matter has gotten more than tangential mentions in terms of reliable source coverage. Maybe it doesn't pass the bar by much, comparatively speaking, but I think it does. Notability is a topic that crosses different languages. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:50, 6 October 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.