Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bang! photography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Delete. I think the outcome is clear. Personally I would have just speedied this under g11. Spartaz Humbug! 18:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bang! photography

Bang! photography (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
plus all the photos!

Original research. (Almost speediable but it is a disputed prod so bring it here.) -- RHaworth 14:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete this rubbish. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, not even how to take photographs that look awful. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 14:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 15:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:OR, unless multiple non-trivial published third-party sources can be found. —David Eppstein 15:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This was speediable due to lack of a claim of notability. The article is a how-to about a new method for producing multiple exposures. If this artist had any reliable and independent sources, such as reviews of his photo exhibits, some of the material might be merged to Multiple exposure. Much of modern photography involves what Wikipedia editors might find to be "photographs that look awful." There was an exhibit a couple of years ago at Chicago's Museum of Contemporary Art of large format photos of famous sites around the world that were all deliberately way out of focus. Photo students are taught to take lots of fuzzy pinhole photos, and contemporary photo artists use cheap cameras with lousy plastic lenses to take awful photos. This is in the spirit that Picasso was also not trying to create a perfect duplicate of the scene he viewed. So the lack of secondary references is the proper criterion to delete this, not the badness of the result. If the artist included some juicy nudes, he might just get gallery exhibits and a cocktail table book from an art publisher!Edison 15:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment These photos are pretty awful per Fys. M1ss1ontomars2k4 15:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Unreferenced, to put it mildly. Effectively a hoax. Johnbod 15:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete due to multiple policy violations (blatant advertising, unreferenced OR, guide, non-notable...) EyeSereneTALK 18:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, article is totally unencyclopedic. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 21:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for failing most or all of WP:OR, WP:V, WP:N, WP:MADEUP, WP:NOT#HOWTO, and probably several others. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 21:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Added: and salt in light of the creator's coments below. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 12:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, nerds. A sack of coal + the average wikipedia editor's ass = diamond mine. Free email accounts are so easy to get. Just try and keep this article down. wikipedia.org is nothing more than a fucking bathroom wall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnynumberone (talk • contribs) 06:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, so much jealousy. Aww, you couldn't create the only innovation in the field since digital photography 15 years ago? Awwwwwwwww, pardon me while I cry when you call my pictures rubbish. Jealous motherfuckers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnynumberone (talk • contribs) 06:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fys - you readily admit that you will delete entries because you don't like the style? How are you allowed to get away with that sort of bullshit? "Much of modern photography involves what Wikipedia editors might find to be 'photographs that look awful.'" wikipedia is not supposed to be about taste, it's supposed to be about facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnynumberone (talk • contribs) 06:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I don't like Picasso, maybe I should go delete his entry? I don't like Kenny G, maybe I should delete his entry? There is a difference between EDITING and CRITIQUING. If you are deleting something because you simply don't like the style, you really need to grow up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnynumberone (talk • contribs) 06:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete So someone invented the double exposure. Congratulations. Take a flash photo in front of a mirror and invent some more art... like Picasso. Mandsford 23:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete and Salt - non-notable; the world and his wife creates double exposures. Will it be Chop! Photography next when all the image subjects have their heads cut off? --WebHamster 00:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
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.