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 Keep, more cleanup needed, but it is a notable subject.. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fireworks photography

[edit]

A 'How-to' guide - little/nothing left if the tips and recommended kit are removed, even the refs are all about how-to. Paulbrock (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Remove the how-to content and you have bupkis. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#HOWTO Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Might be useful for people interested in this unique subject. It also has several verifiable references and seems well written. Artene50 (talk) 02:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete' Per WP:not Tabor (talk) 02:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a printed ref in addition "Eastman Kodak Company. (1976). Photographing fireworks displays with still and movie cameras. Rochester, N.Y.: Kodak, c1976." from worldcat. There are probably dozens of articles in appropriate magazines. The references being how to do it is no handicap to an article. Just needs a little editing. DGG (talk) 04:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But if the articles (and from the title, the Kodak ref) are all 'how-to', what can be put in the article? I agree that there may be scope for discussing it as a discpline, (history of, notable fireworks photographers, etc) but there's nothing there that would be suitable for inclusion. Paulbrock (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though the article needs work, it appears to be a notable subject. 75.128.230.11 (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep The current article seems like a howto, but I don't see anything inherently wrong with the topic for inclusion in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CallipygianSchoolGirl (talk • contribs) 01:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An ecyclopedic and notable subject that merely needs some editing (or trimming for that matter) to comply with WP:NOT#HWTO. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.If it's notable/encyclopedic beyond 'how to', then where are the sources that aren't "how-to"? How is this notable in the same way as nature photography, astrophotography - even fire photography has an international organisation. Whilst it is a challenging subject to photograph, I don't see that Wikipedia is the place for articles on "(any subject) photography" (I've just spotted Skateboard photography, and will address that article after this afd) Paulbrock (talk) 12:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Well it seems notable enough at least for Smithsonian photographers to write a how to on it, and a fireworks photograph is displayed prominently on their first page. The real problem is the lack of sources that are not howtos, but that could just be the nature of the topic and what is popular about it. CallipygianSchoolGirl (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps these are some better sources that mention fireworks photography: Encyclopedia of Photography (http://books.google.com/books?id=eP5UAAAAMAAJ&dq=fireworks+photography&ei=hAxQSJePDJWmigG1g808), and it seems to be mentioned at least as far back as 1924 in the American Annual of Photography (http://books.google.com/books?id=6vJIAAAAMAAJ&q=fireworks+photography&dq=fireworks+photography&ei=hAxQSJePDJWmigG1g808&pgis=1) CallipygianSchoolGirl (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: is written somewhat in an encylopedic manner, and just needs some writing style improvements. Sebwite (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. Reffing from how-to sources is no rationale to delete. Ford MF (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable subject in need of editing not deleting. RMHED (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2008 (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.