Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Photography

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Photography. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Photography|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Photography. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Visual arts.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Photography/archive

watch

Photography

Official portraits of Donald Trump

Official portraits of Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Is the topic notable enough? We don't have individual pages for any of the other presidents' portraits. We already have a page about U.S. presidential portraits. Also WP:NTRUMP — we don't need an article on every single thing about Trump. GN22 (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST and... It actually does exist! We already have quite a few articles on portraits of presidents, and could probably have more. I'm usually on the side of deleting "trumpcruft" but this is fine imo. Sourcing is good. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep There has been quite a lot written about his portraits, especially the contrast between the first and second terms and the darkness of the second term portrait(s), which was also subsequently replaced. The citations are a bit overdone, and I wonder if there is any scholarly work on this yet. Metallurgist (talk) 05:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep: There is clearly significant coverage from reliable sources for each of the portraits. Nominator's claim that there aren't individual articles for other presidents' portraits is false. I don't think this is a case of WP:TRUMPCRUFT, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid deletion reason either. MidnightMayhem 09:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep. Significant coverage has actually established, and as long as GNG is fulfilled, there is really no ground for an OSE or OSDE-based argument. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep, A President with Various Portraits of widespread notability, coverage and discussion should have a page dedicated to such images, Easy keep. Votefree (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep as per Votefree's comment. Maxeto0910 (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Lakshya Chawla

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Lakshya Chawla
• Articles for deletion/Lakshya Chawla (2nd nomination)

Lakshya Chawla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable photographer. Sources consist of passing mentions, spammy advertorials, or self-published material. Not a single reliable source provides WP:SIGCOV on the subject. See also WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Noteworthy that two different SPAs have removed the COI template on this article. Yuvaank (talk) 07:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Photography, and India. Yuvaank (talk) 07:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Delhi and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:28, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Notable photographer, Citations consist in this article are enough to demonstrate notability of the subject. Meets WP:BASIC. [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5].CresiaBilli (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

@CresiaBilli: Can you fix your link by adding https:// before www.? Thanks Agletarang (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:03, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete - Nothing in-depth about he subject in reliable sources. The references provided by CresiaBilli demonstrate why WP:NEWSORGINDIA exists. Three of the four are churnalism (same topic, same photograph, and almost the same date). Clear press campaign to promote the subject which is also being attempted with Wikipedia based on the edit history. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:18, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: The individual clearly does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Wikipedia isn't a platform for showcasing personal career achievements or work portfolio like a resume WP:NOTCV. Charlie (talk) 05:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: meets WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE through significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources over several years. A dedicated profile in the 2019 Bloomsbury book Young India: The Heroes of Today provides in-depth coverage, while feature articles in The Asian Age (2019), Times Now Hindi (2024), and DNA India (2025) focus on his career. HuffPost (2015), The Indian Express (2015, 2017), Vogue India (2022), and The Wire (2025) cover his notable projects and industry impact. The 2017 WeddingSutra award nomination further supports recognition. While Times Now Hindi and DNA India may raise churnalism concerns, their focus on Chawla’s career, combined with Yuva Bharat, Vogue India, and others, shows sustained, independent interest. I agree weak sources (e.g., TOI Mediawire) should be removed and am revising the article to remove resume-like language (e.g., CAT score) for neutrality. Cleanup, not deletion, is warranted.KKM2025 (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC) — KKM2025 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Comment: Just following up on my earlier !vote to keep — the article has come a long way since then. It's now backed by strong, reliable sources, including a full chapter in a Bloomsbury-published book (Yuva Bharat), multiple features in Vogue India, and mainstream coverage from The Indian Express, The Asian Age, HuffPost, and The Wire. These are independent, in-depth sources that clearly establish notability under both WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. I think this directly addresses the concerns about limited coverage and promotional tone that were raised earlier. The subject has a solid career in a creative field, and now the article reflects that in a balanced, well-sourced way. Definitely a keep from me.KKM2025 (talk) 06:13, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

    No, it hasn't. The Indian Express merely credits him for two photos sourced from his Facebook, with no coverage on him. The Asian Age piece lacks a byline and reads like a paid-for spam. HuffPost, in essence, interviews him about his wedding photography experience with a random Hong Kong-based couple. The Wire carries one quote from him. This Vogue India article is self-published by his company Shutter Down Photography, while the other is a listicle containing a passing mention. None of these sources qualify towards notability, and not much has changed since the previous AfD in 2019. Yuvaank (talk) 06:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 23:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: Lack of WP:RS that meet WP:GNG. Vegantics (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: As per nomination. Most of the sources are non reliable. Zuck28 (talk) 03:11, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Categories

• Add categories here using the {{cl|CATEGORY}} template

Templates

• Add templates here using the {{tl|TEMPLATE}} template

Proposed deletion

Add articles whose deletion is proposed (articles that are "prodded") here.

• Pixillion Image Converter (via WP:PROD on 10 September 2023)