Humanities desk
< February 12	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 14 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 13[edit]

Station Squabble[edit]

Could you please help me improve this article before some mean people decide to delete it? Thank you :) Ericdec85 (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it is not worth an article of its own. I would not stand in the way of anyone who proposed to delete it. --Viennese Waltz 14:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ericdec85 -- it doesn't seem that this has the fame of Crasher squirrel yet... AnonMoos (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should start from the top down. That is, there are redlinks for both the photographer and the award. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I notice the award is now bluelinked, and to quite a substantial article. I also notice that of the 35 winners up to 2019, 10 are bluelinked (though none of the winning photographs are.

This suggests to me that the photographer might merit an article if sufficient sources can be found, and perhaps winning the award might itself constitute notability, but that the photo itself probably doesn't at the moment, though its article could be folded in to one on the photographer. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.58.107 (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On further investigation, I now see that the "Wildlife Photographer of the Year LUMIX People’s Choice Award" [my italics] won by the photograph is only one of 20-odd sub-categories of the Wildlife Photographer of the Year Award: the winners' numbers I gave above are those for the single annual Overall Winner (which has not yet been announced for 2020 – Station Squabble could still potentially win it too). This might be seen to weaken the case for retention and for the notability of the photographer. On the other paw, there is a new article about the photo, photographer and award on the BBC News website today – here. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.58.107 (talk) 08:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone inspired to start a Sam Rowley (wildlife photographer) article, here are two snippets. (1) Apparently, he could already be called an "award-winning photograpger" at age 15. (2) He studied biology at the University of Bristol. This info can also be found on his website, but it is good to have independent confirmation. A further mention is here, but it does not seem to contain additional encyclopedic information. --Lambiam 20:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tip for the future: if you're starting with a short article, it's often a good idea to start it as a draft in your userspace. Other people can edit it along with you at leisure. Then when you think it's ready, you can "publish" it by moving the page to the article namespace. I'm slightly surprised no patroller came by to slap a tag on the original version given that it consisted of one sentence and a link. (I'm not saying it's good or bad that you did this. People have different feelings on minimum criteria for articles. But if someone who feels differently comes along and thinks it should be deleted you might wind up in a dispute with them; starting with a draft avoids this.) --47.146.63.87 (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]