Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banquet Photography

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. Petros471 20:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banquet Photography

Banquet Photography (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contains nothing not inherently obvious from the title. Contains a link to the creator's website. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Based on Google searches on some of the photographers mentioned (Kelty and MacKay), it looks like this is a notable subject. Although certainly the article could be made more encyclopedic, I would vote to keep it. Josh Thompson 00:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

But, as stated, there appears to be nothing to say which is not obvious from the title. The "notable banquet photographers" are ntoable photographers who happened to photograph banquets. Banquet photography: photographing banquets. And, er, that's it. Guy (Help!) 07:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like a legitimate encyclopedic subject, and it's been edited recently. When in doubt, don't delete. YechielMan 01:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless there's some evidence it's a legitimate encyclopedic subject and not just the vaguely expressed hope that it is. --Calton | Talk 13:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 02:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This belongs in a dictionary. the_undertow ^talk 07:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and echoing Calton's point. Eusebeus 07:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There is one specific book listed, and I think it's clear that additional specific sources can be found. This is a distinguishable genre, due to the very special cameras traditionally used, which separate it from other forms of commercial and artistic work. The website linked to gives some idea of the very wide range of potential material for an expansion of the article. I knew this existed, but i didn't realize the richness of the subject. DGG 01:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Note As there is apparently no Wikiproject for photography, I have listed this discussion at the Photography portal DGG 01:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Photography unless more sources can be found, even though I have seen the large view cameras which were specially made for such photographs. Edison 04:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Looks like a valid terminology of photography, thus notable enough for an encyclopaedic item. The article obviously needs more sources and content, but not links to banquet photographer websites per WP:NOT#LINK. — Indon (reply) — 08:56, 6 May 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.