- 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 redirect to Camera phone. Sandstein 09:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
IPhoneography
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- IPhoneography ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a neologism for pictures taken with a camera phone, and there is already an article for camera phone. Articles on iPhones already cover the imaging capabilities of these devices. Reliable sources certainly talk broadly about technology's impact on the practice of photography, but the term "iPhoneography" is definitely not used in the major photography references. ( WP:CFORK, WP:NEO, WP:SIGCOV, WP:NOT#DICT) Qono ( talk) 20:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 20:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 20:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 20:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect to Camera phone. -- Hoary ( talk) 06:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect to Camera phone. Shashank5988 ( talk) 15:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect to Camera phone. - Lopifalko ( talk) 20:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep - (
edit conflict)
and merge Camera phone.The term "iPhoneography" is ubiquitous, as is iPhoneographer as seen in this online publication, andit hasthere is a notable history that can be connected [1], [2] that perhaps should be included as it adds to its encyclopedic value - to clarify...perhaps not necessary to go that far back (phonegraphy-stenography-all the way to video depositions to iPhoneography). Adding: We have Photography, Camera and various articles about types/makes of cameras. iPhotography is the start of something similar as it is/should be about the art, application and creation of photographs for the internet and all it has to offer, building from the links I included regarding the history.16:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC) Atsme 👩💻 📧 13:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)- I'm not sure iphonelife.com is a reliable source or that their usage qualifies "iPhoneography" as a notable topic. Your two other sources are from the 19th century and are using the phrase "phonegraphy", which apparently refers "the writing of sounds", not the practice of taking pictures with an iPhone, which is what this article is about. Qono ( talk) 16:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- ( edit conflict) with my additions/strikes that I included in my statement - hopefully it addresses the points you made at the same time. Atsme 👩💻 📧 16:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment –
iPhoneography has nothing worth salvaging from it. It ranges across a number of topics, the vast majority of it inconsequential including
WP:NOTAMANUAL, largely unsourced. It does not make a case for the existence of iPhoneography, nor indeed phoneography, as a thing. -
Lopifalko (
talk)
17:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- I just added several RS to the article including NYTimes, National Geographic, WaPo, PetaPixel, 9to5Mac, etc. I've changed my iVote to speedy. I would not oppose moving it to Phoneography & reversing the redirect, and not make it specific to iPhone.18:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC) This article can be expanded, become a DYK nom, and a GA without a great deal of difficulty. Other articles can be wikilinked to it and/or created as a result. I do wish more time was invested in locating RS before bringing articles to AfD. Atsme 👩💻 📧 18:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Word. Alarichall ( talk) 21:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect to camera phone. 111.68.115.165 ( talk) 05:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. This subject straightforwardly meets the WP:GNG criterion 'topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject'. To show this, I've created IPhoneography#Further_reading, listing nine academic publications/theses on this subject -- and a quick scholar.google.com search shows that there are lots more I could have listed. Certainly this article could be a lot better, but its notability is clear. (Just to respond to some of the comments above, surely merging iPhoneography to Camera phone would be rather like merging Photography to Camera? Likewise, Wikipedia has a rich array of articles on different kinds of photography, listed at Category:Photography by genre. iPhoneography is potentially a great contribution to these.) Alarichall ( talk) 20:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep the iPhone represents an important milestone in the history of phone-based photography. As is evident by the many sources for the article title, and the excellent books found by Alarichall, this page, while fringe-ish, can stand on its own. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 06:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- If "iPhoneography" were an important topic in its own right then where is the coverage, compared with that for using smartphones in general? How many of the cited sources use the term "iPhoneography"? OF those that are independent reliable sources, zero. The only ones that do are www.iphoneography.com, www.artofiphoneography.com, a book by Apress called iPhoneography, and 9to5Mac quotes a single word tweet from someone at Apple using the word. This is not persuasive evidence. -
Lopifalko (
talk)
07:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I see five or six books with iPhoneography in their title. Books aren't reliable sources anymore? What about
Wired magazine?
Forbes? The
National Film Board of Canada?
Petapixel?
The New Media and Society Journal?
The Seattle Times? I agree it's a cheesy subject, but it does have coverage.
ThatMontrealIP (
talk)
07:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Fair enough. As I said, I was refering to the "cited sources". -
Lopifalko (
talk)
08:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I am pleased that you are persuaded by the sources. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 14:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- If these sources prove the existence of iPhoneography, where does that leave us with regard having an article on photography with a particular manufacturer's device (which to me is too specific, a term in need of fixing), compared with photography on smartphones in general (phoneography)? -
Lopifalko (
talk)
12:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- As you imply, the term iPhoneography is rather modish -- though it may yet become the dominant term, the way that 'biro' has become the dominant term for 'ballpoint pen' (at least in British English). We could change the title to 'Smart phone photography' or something?
Alarichall (
talk)
20:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think it will become the dominant term. I think the most recent source we have, either from those in the article or those provided here by ThatMontrealIP, is from 2015. I think this thing has run its course already. -
Lopifalko (
talk)
21:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Agree with Lopifalko in that the discussion has run its course. As a reviewer at
WP:NPP (not that it means anything) I'm of the mind that the topic easily passes GNG. I thought about moving it to a more generic title as Phoneography which would be all inclusive, and not proprietary to a specific brand.
Atsme
Talk
📧
23:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Clarification: by "this thing has run its course", by I meant "thing" being some peoples' trying to get some traction for a term called "iPhoneography" going, which appears to have run its course by 2015. - Lopifalko ( talk) 08:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Agree with Lopifalko in that the discussion has run its course. As a reviewer at
WP:NPP (not that it means anything) I'm of the mind that the topic easily passes GNG. I thought about moving it to a more generic title as Phoneography which would be all inclusive, and not proprietary to a specific brand.
Atsme
Talk
📧
23:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think it will become the dominant term. I think the most recent source we have, either from those in the article or those provided here by ThatMontrealIP, is from 2015. I think this thing has run its course already. -
Lopifalko (
talk)
21:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- As you imply, the term iPhoneography is rather modish -- though it may yet become the dominant term, the way that 'biro' has become the dominant term for 'ballpoint pen' (at least in British English). We could change the title to 'Smart phone photography' or something?
Alarichall (
talk)
20:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Fair enough. As I said, I was refering to the "cited sources". -
Lopifalko (
talk)
08:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I see five or six books with iPhoneography in their title. Books aren't reliable sources anymore? What about
Wired magazine?
Forbes? The
National Film Board of Canada?
Petapixel?
The New Media and Society Journal?
The Seattle Times? I agree it's a cheesy subject, but it does have coverage.
ThatMontrealIP (
talk)
07:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- If "iPhoneography" were an important topic in its own right then where is the coverage, compared with that for using smartphones in general? How many of the cited sources use the term "iPhoneography"? OF those that are independent reliable sources, zero. The only ones that do are www.iphoneography.com, www.artofiphoneography.com, a book by Apress called iPhoneography, and 9to5Mac quotes a single word tweet from someone at Apple using the word. This is not persuasive evidence. -
Lopifalko (
talk)
07:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect to Camera phone. - - FlightTime ( open channel) 14:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: Reverted out-of-policy
WP:NAC. --
King of
♥
♦
♣ ♠
17:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment WP:NOTBURO is policy; but feel free to waste everyon's time, there's plenty of it going round. —— SerialNumber 54129 17:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - it's quite obvious the topic is notable and well sourced. I had no objection to SerialNumber's close. A camera phone and iPhoneography are two different topics, the same way photography and camera are two different topics, so a redirect should not even be a consideration. Atsme Talk 📧 18:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect If the term is used in connection with a single brand, it might have a place in Wikitionary, but there is otherwise nothing specific aboutthe topic. DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- As the article and sources explain, the term is not only used in connection with a single brand, but with smartphones generally. Alarichall ( talk) 07:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 redirect to Camera phone. Sandstein 09:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
IPhoneography
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- IPhoneography ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a neologism for pictures taken with a camera phone, and there is already an article for camera phone. Articles on iPhones already cover the imaging capabilities of these devices. Reliable sources certainly talk broadly about technology's impact on the practice of photography, but the term "iPhoneography" is definitely not used in the major photography references. ( WP:CFORK, WP:NEO, WP:SIGCOV, WP:NOT#DICT) Qono ( talk) 20:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 20:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 20:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 20:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect to Camera phone. -- Hoary ( talk) 06:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect to Camera phone. Shashank5988 ( talk) 15:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect to Camera phone. - Lopifalko ( talk) 20:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep - (
edit conflict)
and merge Camera phone.The term "iPhoneography" is ubiquitous, as is iPhoneographer as seen in this online publication, andit hasthere is a notable history that can be connected [1], [2] that perhaps should be included as it adds to its encyclopedic value - to clarify...perhaps not necessary to go that far back (phonegraphy-stenography-all the way to video depositions to iPhoneography). Adding: We have Photography, Camera and various articles about types/makes of cameras. iPhotography is the start of something similar as it is/should be about the art, application and creation of photographs for the internet and all it has to offer, building from the links I included regarding the history.16:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC) Atsme 👩💻 📧 13:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)- I'm not sure iphonelife.com is a reliable source or that their usage qualifies "iPhoneography" as a notable topic. Your two other sources are from the 19th century and are using the phrase "phonegraphy", which apparently refers "the writing of sounds", not the practice of taking pictures with an iPhone, which is what this article is about. Qono ( talk) 16:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- ( edit conflict) with my additions/strikes that I included in my statement - hopefully it addresses the points you made at the same time. Atsme 👩💻 📧 16:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment –
iPhoneography has nothing worth salvaging from it. It ranges across a number of topics, the vast majority of it inconsequential including
WP:NOTAMANUAL, largely unsourced. It does not make a case for the existence of iPhoneography, nor indeed phoneography, as a thing. -
Lopifalko (
talk)
17:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- I just added several RS to the article including NYTimes, National Geographic, WaPo, PetaPixel, 9to5Mac, etc. I've changed my iVote to speedy. I would not oppose moving it to Phoneography & reversing the redirect, and not make it specific to iPhone.18:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC) This article can be expanded, become a DYK nom, and a GA without a great deal of difficulty. Other articles can be wikilinked to it and/or created as a result. I do wish more time was invested in locating RS before bringing articles to AfD. Atsme 👩💻 📧 18:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Word. Alarichall ( talk) 21:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect to camera phone. 111.68.115.165 ( talk) 05:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. This subject straightforwardly meets the WP:GNG criterion 'topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject'. To show this, I've created IPhoneography#Further_reading, listing nine academic publications/theses on this subject -- and a quick scholar.google.com search shows that there are lots more I could have listed. Certainly this article could be a lot better, but its notability is clear. (Just to respond to some of the comments above, surely merging iPhoneography to Camera phone would be rather like merging Photography to Camera? Likewise, Wikipedia has a rich array of articles on different kinds of photography, listed at Category:Photography by genre. iPhoneography is potentially a great contribution to these.) Alarichall ( talk) 20:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep the iPhone represents an important milestone in the history of phone-based photography. As is evident by the many sources for the article title, and the excellent books found by Alarichall, this page, while fringe-ish, can stand on its own. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 06:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- If "iPhoneography" were an important topic in its own right then where is the coverage, compared with that for using smartphones in general? How many of the cited sources use the term "iPhoneography"? OF those that are independent reliable sources, zero. The only ones that do are www.iphoneography.com, www.artofiphoneography.com, a book by Apress called iPhoneography, and 9to5Mac quotes a single word tweet from someone at Apple using the word. This is not persuasive evidence. -
Lopifalko (
talk)
07:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I see five or six books with iPhoneography in their title. Books aren't reliable sources anymore? What about
Wired magazine?
Forbes? The
National Film Board of Canada?
Petapixel?
The New Media and Society Journal?
The Seattle Times? I agree it's a cheesy subject, but it does have coverage.
ThatMontrealIP (
talk)
07:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Fair enough. As I said, I was refering to the "cited sources". -
Lopifalko (
talk)
08:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I am pleased that you are persuaded by the sources. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 14:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- If these sources prove the existence of iPhoneography, where does that leave us with regard having an article on photography with a particular manufacturer's device (which to me is too specific, a term in need of fixing), compared with photography on smartphones in general (phoneography)? -
Lopifalko (
talk)
12:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- As you imply, the term iPhoneography is rather modish -- though it may yet become the dominant term, the way that 'biro' has become the dominant term for 'ballpoint pen' (at least in British English). We could change the title to 'Smart phone photography' or something?
Alarichall (
talk)
20:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think it will become the dominant term. I think the most recent source we have, either from those in the article or those provided here by ThatMontrealIP, is from 2015. I think this thing has run its course already. -
Lopifalko (
talk)
21:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Agree with Lopifalko in that the discussion has run its course. As a reviewer at
WP:NPP (not that it means anything) I'm of the mind that the topic easily passes GNG. I thought about moving it to a more generic title as Phoneography which would be all inclusive, and not proprietary to a specific brand.
Atsme
Talk
📧
23:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Clarification: by "this thing has run its course", by I meant "thing" being some peoples' trying to get some traction for a term called "iPhoneography" going, which appears to have run its course by 2015. - Lopifalko ( talk) 08:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Agree with Lopifalko in that the discussion has run its course. As a reviewer at
WP:NPP (not that it means anything) I'm of the mind that the topic easily passes GNG. I thought about moving it to a more generic title as Phoneography which would be all inclusive, and not proprietary to a specific brand.
Atsme
Talk
📧
23:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think it will become the dominant term. I think the most recent source we have, either from those in the article or those provided here by ThatMontrealIP, is from 2015. I think this thing has run its course already. -
Lopifalko (
talk)
21:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- As you imply, the term iPhoneography is rather modish -- though it may yet become the dominant term, the way that 'biro' has become the dominant term for 'ballpoint pen' (at least in British English). We could change the title to 'Smart phone photography' or something?
Alarichall (
talk)
20:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Fair enough. As I said, I was refering to the "cited sources". -
Lopifalko (
talk)
08:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I see five or six books with iPhoneography in their title. Books aren't reliable sources anymore? What about
Wired magazine?
Forbes? The
National Film Board of Canada?
Petapixel?
The New Media and Society Journal?
The Seattle Times? I agree it's a cheesy subject, but it does have coverage.
ThatMontrealIP (
talk)
07:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- If "iPhoneography" were an important topic in its own right then where is the coverage, compared with that for using smartphones in general? How many of the cited sources use the term "iPhoneography"? OF those that are independent reliable sources, zero. The only ones that do are www.iphoneography.com, www.artofiphoneography.com, a book by Apress called iPhoneography, and 9to5Mac quotes a single word tweet from someone at Apple using the word. This is not persuasive evidence. -
Lopifalko (
talk)
07:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect to Camera phone. - - FlightTime ( open channel) 14:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: Reverted out-of-policy
WP:NAC. --
King of
♥
♦
♣ ♠
17:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment WP:NOTBURO is policy; but feel free to waste everyon's time, there's plenty of it going round. —— SerialNumber 54129 17:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - it's quite obvious the topic is notable and well sourced. I had no objection to SerialNumber's close. A camera phone and iPhoneography are two different topics, the same way photography and camera are two different topics, so a redirect should not even be a consideration. Atsme Talk 📧 18:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect If the term is used in connection with a single brand, it might have a place in Wikitionary, but there is otherwise nothing specific aboutthe topic. DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- As the article and sources explain, the term is not only used in connection with a single brand, but with smartphones generally. Alarichall ( talk) 07:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- 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.