Talk:Photography in New Zealand
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Photography in New Zealand is part of WikiProject New Zealand, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
from VfD:
[edit] New Zealand Photographers
non-notable, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Howard M Scott. --fvw* 02:28, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
-
- I am sure we have more than one photographer in NZ. Meanwhile delete.
ping 08:35, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Delete. If anything, this should be called List of .... However, the same net effect could be achieved as the intersection of a category of New Zealanders (if such a category exists) and Category:Photographers. --MarkSweep 09:22, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)- Change that to weak delete, considering the recent edits by Drstuey. I'm still opposed to the kind of fragmentation this article is indicative of. A person's profession and their country of origin/residence are basically orthogonal categories. How is an NZ photographer essentially different from a Brazilian photographer, aside from the obvious fact that they are affiliated with different countries? It would suffice to simply add an NZ photographer to categories "Photographers" and "New Zealanders". The nice thing about categories (as opposed to list articles) is that they intersect, i.e., one can query all articles that belong to two or more categories. Drstuey's changes are a vast improvement over the previous version, but now the article is more about photography in NZ. --MarkSweep 13:08, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. There is no article here. jni 09:31, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Comments in the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Howard M Scott section indicate this was a new user misunderstanding. Average Earthman 17:12, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Has been revised since my initial vote, but I'm not convinced that the current article establishes that there is a clear New Zealand based style/trend/scene/school (not in the physical sense) in photography. But it's more of a weak delete now than originally. Average Earthman 18:07, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I'm torn between meanwhile delete and good articles often start with a stub - there should be an article here - a proper article, not a bloody list - obviously this is not it, but ... - Drstuey 11:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- OK, I have edited the article, removed the Howard M Scott content, which as pointed out here was a mistake, and added some proper content. Have I done enough for this to be a keep? Will you change you votes? Anyways, I vote Keep. - Drstuey 11:55, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- A commendable effort, but I'm afraid there's still not much concrete information there, just some names of photographers and the fact that new zealand has a lot of nature. Unless there's something fundamental that differentiates New Zealand Photographers from Photographers (living in New Zealand doesn't count) I'm afraid this isn't going to get my keep vote. --fvw* 12:23, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)
- OK, I have edited the article, removed the Howard M Scott content, which as pointed out here was a mistake, and added some proper content. Have I done enough for this to be a keep? Will you change you votes? Anyways, I vote Keep. - Drstuey 11:55, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
end moved discussion
