Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 July 5

Speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria, see User_talk:Penwhale#Atomium_image. 9carney (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Kadar Brock

The consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 June 27#Draft:Kadar Brock was 5–1 to allow recreation. But Spartaz did not restore the article because:

The consensus was that the G4 was not justified but Guy subsequently deleted the graft on the basis of undisclosed COI editing and G11. That action is outwith this discussion and in the case of undeclared COI editing, the community feels strongly enough about this that am not prepared to undo Guy's action without a specific consensus at DRV to do so.

I am taking this back to DRV to seek that "specific consensus".

G11 applies only to:

Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic.

JzG wrote at the DRV: "Google the name of the creator: 'Studio Administrative Assistant at Kadar Brock Studio'." But G11 doesn't authorize speedy deletion of a draft when there's an undisclosed COI. It only authorizes speedy deletion for "exclusively promotional" pages.

I have not verified the creator's job title and workplace because I do not know who created the article. But Googling the subject and revealing his or her information here seems to strays too closely to violating Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Avoid outing. WP:OUTING says that "personal information" includes "job title and work organisation".

When I reviewed the draft, I believed it was well sourced and sufficiently neutral. It did not violate WP:G11.

Restore draft and move to mainspace to enforce the consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 June 27#Draft:Kadar Brock.

Cunard (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of sources about the subject that enable him to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline:
1. Smith, Roberta (2006-05-19). "Art in Review; Kadar Brock". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2015-07-05. Retrieved 2015-07-05.
2. Love, Lucia (2014-01-18). "Kadar Brock". Berlin Art Link. Archived from the original on 2015-07-05. Retrieved 2015-07-05.
3. Herriman, Kat (2015-01-09). "Paint, Scrub, and Repeat". W. Retrieved 2015-07-05.
4. Gavin, Francesca (2013-06-24). "Best of Art Basel: Kadar Brock at The Hole at Volta". Dazed. Archived from the original on 2015-07-05. Retrieved 2015-07-05.
5. Gavin, Francesca (2013-08-19). "Kadar Brock: The New Yorker explains why addition and subtraction are at the heart of his work". Dazed. Archived from the original on 2015-07-05. Retrieved 2015-07-05.
6. "VOLTA10 Video Series: Kadar Brock". Aesthetica. 2014-06-13. Archived from the original on 2015-07-05. Retrieved 2015-07-05.
7. Laluyan, Oscar A. (2013-09-18). "Kadar Brock Dredges It Up at The Hole". Arte Fuse. Archived from the original on 2015-07-05. Retrieved 2015-07-05.
Cunard (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging JzG (talk · contribs), DESiegel (talk · contribs), Hobit (talk · contribs), WilyD (talk · contribs), and Davewild (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Leave deleted per WP:NOTBURO. A promotional article is what it was, and frankly the draft creator, who is employed by the article subject, is asking to join the article's original creator, Iaogallery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), in being indefinitely blocked for spamming. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

restore as per previous consensus. This was not a blatently promotional text of no value to the project. It needed copy editing, as most relativly new articles do, but it was sourced and the subject was pretty clearly notable, IMO. The statements made were factual, if generally positive towards the subject. One quotation was rather positive, but it was a sourced and attributed quote. If it was WP:UNDUE the solution would be to find a balancing quote or statement, or at most to remove the quote. As to any alleged COI editing -- I have not seen the evidence behind such a claim -- it is strictly beside the point. COI editing is not a reason for speedy deletion. Frankly this deletion strikes me as disruptive, if not arbitration-worthy, after there was a clear consensus to permit restoration. I am strongly tempted to restore and source the artticle further myself without any additional discussion, as in my view none is needed to enforce the previous DRV consensus. Any promotional nature of that version would have bean fully appareant to those viewing the draft at the DRV discussion, and the consensus clearly did not view this as promotional, much less blatently so. The content, not the author, is what makes an article promotional or not. WP:CSD says, in pertinant part, "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations and pages that meet specific uncontroversial criteria" If multiple experienced editors supported retaining the draft, it was not an obvious case for G11 deletion, so this deleteion was withotu consensus and to the harm of the project. I urge Guy to reveerse his action promptly. DES ^(talk) 19:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
restore as per previous consensus. In general, I've been very impressed with Guy's work, but this particular action really surprised me. The first DRV was clearly heading towards a consensus to overturn the previous deletion. That's not the best time to jump in with, OK, maybe not G4, but I'll play my G11 card and trump your consensus. DES gets it all right above. I wouldn't go so far as calling for arbitration, but I can see some trout swimming not too far away. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan–Bangladesh relations

Discussion was closed as "no consensus" after barely seven days. Ten people left input but for an article on bilateral relations, this is insignificant; the AfD was largely hijacked by one editor's inclusion of a draft essay that caused drama. Closing admin's judgement that enough people had commented was flawed IMO, and there is no harm in allowing this to remain open to gain an actual consensus. I feel input of more people is needed here and will be helpful to avoid further drama if article is relisted for deletion. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse After a substantial 7 day discussion , where clearly incompatible but reasonable views are expressed by established editors, especially on a topic where there have been man inconclusive afds, there's really no necessity to relist instead of closing no consensus . Some admins would relist in this circumstance, some not--either is an acceptable option. The appeal here is unnecessary--you can just wait a few weeks, and list for AfD2--the reason for waiting a few weeks is that its more likely to result in a conclusive discussion. DGG ( talk ) 07:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. See Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5 July 2015

File:Atomium 320 by 240 CCBY20 flickr Mike Cattell.jpg

Draft:Kadar Brock

Azerbaijan–Bangladesh relations