Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Studio 1 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 delete. Despite the commendable improvement work by DES, the consensus is that there is not sufficient independent, non-trivial coverage of this subject. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Studio 1 Photography

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

This was speedily deleted and overturned at deletion review. In my view, this organisation is not notable as the coverage does not amount to "significant coverage in reliable sources". However, that's an on balance judgement which is why we are here. Mkativerata (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to be fairly trivial coverage. Disclosure: I closed the DRV as "restored to be discussed at AFD". –xeno^talk 19:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:COMPANY, WP:PROMOTION. Doesn't seem to pass the notability guidelines. Blatantly promotional^[1]. Should have used WP:G11, not WP:A7. — Rankiri (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable company promoting itself. Honestly the claims for notability are hardly credible, so I can understand why it was originally speedily deleted. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 20:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. So far as I can see, all the claims have been supported by citations to reliable sources, so i think they are fairly credible. Whether they amount to notability is of course another matter. It is obvious that this is a widely franchised business, with hundreds of branches. That alone is not notabality of course, but IMO it does contribute. The mentions in multiple news stories in connection with the Kiddie Kandids bankruptcy raises its overall profile. Together with the Utah This Week profile, which is in effect a review of the business, I think there is sufficient coverage to warrant an article. I admit that others could rationally disagree. However I maintain that this is way outside speedy deletion territory, either for A7 or G11. In form this is a neutral description of the business, no more promotional than any article about a company inherently is. If it is promotional in effect, that can only be because of lack of notability, which is a matter for AfD, not speedy deletion. DES ^(talk) 22:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, I have added some additional references, including a mention of an award. DES ^(talk) 22:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources offer independent, nontrivial coverage of the subject. [2] is obviously a press release: it's filled with overly promotional language and its host is a church-owned advertising agency for public service announcements, cause marketing, direct response, and retail mall advertising^[3]. The phrase "Best Budget Photographer in Utah" seems unverifiable: [4]. — Rankiri (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course that is a press release, that's why it is cited with {{cite press release}}, and the citation ends with "Press release. Retrieved 22 March 2010." A press release, which is a primary source, can be used to help establish the fact that the company made such an offer, of course it does not of itself establish notability. DES ^(talk) 23:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC) That's why we have {{cite press release}}. DES ^(talk) 23:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Following DESiegel's excellent work improving this article I feel compelled to re-visit my preference for a deletion expressed in my nomination. Both limbs of the test of significant coverage in reliable sources are matters of degree. I don't think they have been met here. The coverage is of a very local nature and there are real questions about the reliability of sources that are either press releases or regurgitate press releases, or are puff write-ups that are probably paid for. Accordingly, I still think this article ought to be deleted. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I freely grant that those are both judgment calls. I disagree with your view of the inthisweek.com piece, I see no indications that it is paid for, although it does seem to avoid negative reviews. However, it would be rational to feel that it was not sufficient coverage even if it were reliable in itself. Thank you for reconsidering the matter. DES ^(talk) 23:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article provides concise descriptions for nine of ten local businesses. The coverage of the subject is practically limited to its general manager's quotes. Also, the article is written by Amanda Chamberlain but the paragraph in question is written by Victoria James...by referral? I have no idea what it's about but it sure doesn't look like significant coverage by a reliable secondary source to me. — Rankiri (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I read it correctly "Victoria James" is the name of the "High-end" photography source being contrasted with Studio 1, and "By referral" is a sub-head, because that review includes the comment "But we hope you know someone who knows someone, because you can't even get an appointment without a referral ... unless you pay a $500 appointment deposit". That review starts with "...Utah's premier studio, Victoria James." Just to set the record straight. DES ^(talk) 00:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. — Rankiri (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete a very solid bit of work by DES, but the sources are fairly weak. Only inthisweek provides any real coverage of the place in my opinion. A more in-depth review of the place would change me to a keep. Hobit (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The coverage is not significant or indpendent enough to establish notability. The article from inthisweek.com is not solely about the studio, and when one examines the actual content, half of it quoting the studio's general manager. -- Whpq (talk) 20:09, 23 March 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.