Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Editorial Photographers

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. Davewild (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial Photographers

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

There are not evidences in media that this organisation exists and notable Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From the web site: "APA Editorial Photographers (APA / EP) is a chapter of American Photographic Artists dedicated to improving the business of editorial photography". There are a number of photography societies in WP, but the larger society, APA, is not one of them, otherwise we could redirect. I didn't find any sources, and all of the ones listed here are the society itself and the site of the person who created the page. It was created in 2007 and has a few edits over the years but has not had any RS added. LaMona (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Editorial photography is important -- very important -- and arguably someone will search that subject with this term. Therefore, a redirect argument could be made. However, what's not sustainable is an argument for this namespace going to a particular professional organization's particular suborganization. It's like all of those articles on "Jones House" (which danged one? the one in Yourtown isn't THE one) or having articles on "First Baptist Church." Worse, though, this organization's suborg doesn't warrant an article even properly lodged, so I don't see a valid argument for a redirect, even, to preserve the history. Hithladaeus (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2015 (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.