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. Courcelles (talk) 02:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Straight Up (photography) and The straight up

[edit]

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

AfDs for this article:

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

The contributor to this article has edited only this article (and the duplicate The straight up). No valid references or third-party coverage is provided by this current single-purpose account, and no valid google hits for this term. — Timneu22 · talk 17:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unformatted comment from article author Hi. I am the deputy editor of i-D magazine and I am trying to insert an entry but am finding it very difficult - please may someone email me to help! thank you holly.shackleton@i-dmagazine.co.uk
There appears to be a conflict of interest with you creating this page. — Timneu22 · talk 17:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that it exists, let alone that it is notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The concept, such as it is, is already explained in detail at i-D; we don't also need these two minimal articles in addition. --MelanieN (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2010 (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.