Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pitch White

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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 15 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pitch White

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

WP:NOTABILITY - article on a photographic technique is written by the creator of the technique. The references listed are Spanish-language radio or TV with no specific shows listed, merely dates, and thus are not reasonably verifiable, and given the WP:COI of the person adding them, should not be assumed to be accurate reflections of substantive coverage. Google searches using title combined with various relevant terms turned up only a couple of references beyond the creator's own website, not more than three sentences relevant at a time - an announcement of a photography exhibition and a mention in a book of photos, which appears to be likely a self-published source. As such, the page appears to be WP:PROMO. Page is an orphan. Nat Gertler (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TV / radio show names are available and will be added to the article. Original source material can be sent, including historical web-pages.Gcorpart (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the article to be written in a neutral voice explaining the technique and outcome. The mention of the creator is as a reference point to the existance of the photo technique, rather than self promotion. While there exists the potential for a conflict of interest, I do not believe there is one. This is a similar description to other photography techniques currently found on Wikipedia, such as panography. In this specific case, I would say that Pitch White is better sourced and documented, maintaining a neutral voice.Gcorpart (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: panography is not suffering form a notability problem, as a Google search would show; even if it were, that would not support having another article with notability problems. (And given that the preponderance of your own earlier edits were to insert your name and links to your work into article - [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] - it is difficult not to see promotion of yourself and your technique as a goal.) Nat Gertler (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From reading your comments and looking into the guidelines, I understand why the links to "images of..." have been removed. Won't do that again. That said, I tend to think otherwise of the technique which has media presence, just little of it being web based, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcorpart (talk • contribs) 00:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 10:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm hoping that the problem of being able to display a suitable illustration can be solved. Until then, this would probably be better as a redirect to another article. Mandsford (talk) 13:21, 18 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.