Talk:Up Your Alley Fair

Notability

The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Please help to establish notability by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted.

This article on a place of local interest appears to contain only a small amount of verifiable information, may not be notable, or may overly focus on local-interest trivia. Please expand the article, citing sources, using these suggestions as a guide. If this article is not expanded, consider merging this article into the article on the parent community. For further guidance, please consult Wikipedia:Places of local interest.

The article has been tagged accordingly. SunCrow (talk) 03:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I see. And is the crude image really necessary? Sxologist (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Freeknowledgecreator: Could use your input here. Thank you. --Sxologist (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure why you would ask me for my input, or why you would think I would have anything particularly helpful to say. Fairs like this are not a subject that I am either very interested in or very knowledgeable about. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Freeknowledgecreator: only because of your volume of edits, am curious as to whether or not the attached photograph is appropriate given the interest of one editor who added it. --Sxologist (talk) 03:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Removal of image

I have removed the image on the article. As per WP:PROFANE, "controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article." While the event is a fetish related, the image focused entirely on the backside of a single naked person and distracts from the purpose of the article. Given the notability and size of the article, the image could have been added in the personal interest of a single editor rather than to add quality to a stub. --Sxologist (talk) 04:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. I have never been to this fair, but the image seems to be a good indication of what it is about. And the image certainly does not focus "entirely on the backside" of its subject, but is a full length photograph. That the backside is close to the middle is simply a fact of human anatomy, rather than an artefact of the image. If a viewer chooses to focus entirely on the backside then that is not the fault of the image. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

True, I did have a good chuckle at your anatomy comment. That wasn't quite what I meant but I see your point. Well, I certainly would argue it could be replaced with a more relevant image in future since the event, according to it's own description, is more leather focused than the image suggests. If an image can depict the fetishism without having to display the backside of somebody who appears to have some sort of vegetable held between their cheeks that might at least be more inclusive of the activities held there. I know WP does not demand censorship or favoritism of less graphic imagery. --Sxologist (talk) 07:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)