Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:DRV)
Jump to: navigation, search

Administrator instructions

Deletion Review (DRV) is a forum designed primarily to appeal disputed speedy deletions and disputed decisions made as a result of deletion discussions; this includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.

Purpose[edit]

Deletion Review may be used:

  1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
  2. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
  3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
  4. if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
  5. if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.

Deletion Review should not be used:

  1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
  2. when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination;
  3. to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
  4. to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
  5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
  6. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
  7. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests); or
  8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed).

Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.

Instructions[edit]

Before listing a review request, please:

  1. Discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion Review. See § Purpose.
  2. Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Commenting in a deletion review[edit]

In the deletion review discussion, please:

  • Endorse the original closing decision; or
  • Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
  • List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
  • Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
  • Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.

Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.

Temporary undeletion[edit]

Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by non-admins. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Closing reviews[edit]

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.

Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint - if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't).

Steps to list a new deletion review[edit]

 
1.

Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the closing admin as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, please note in the DRV listing that you first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page.

2.

Copy this template skeleton for most pages:

{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|reason=
}} ~~~~

Copy this template skeleton for files:

{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|article=
|reason=
}} ~~~~
3.

Follow this link to today's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the deleted page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the page should be undeleted. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example:

{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
4.

Inform the administrator who deleted the page, or the user who closed the deletion discussion, by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
5.

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

6.

Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:

  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2017 June 27}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2017 June 27|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
 



Active discussions[edit]

27 June 2017[edit]

23 June 2017[edit]

File:James Thomas Hodgkinson.png[edit]

File:James Thomas Hodgkinson.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

This was a fair use headshot photograph of the perpetrator of the 2017 Congressional baseball shooting, used to identify him in the section about him in that article.

I think the closer erred in closing this discussion. Opinions were divided about whether the image meets the NFCC, which should have resulted in a "no consensus, default to keep" outcome, given that no one side's arguments seem to offer a particularly more compelling interpretation of the NFCC. The closer's reference to "precedent" is mistaken in that Wikipedia does not apply (binding) precedent, but looks at each case individually; this is even more so where the "precedent" is exactly one closure by the same closer themselves, and took place on a notoriously poorly attended forum such as FfD, where individual discussions can't amount to much in the way of community consensus.

The closer has replied to these concerns in detail on their talk page, which I appreciate. They argue that the "keep" opinions did not (explicitly) address the NFCC, but in my view this should not be necessary. The NFCC are a highly technical and obscure policy, which ordinary editors can't be expected to know by heart. The "keep" opinions make sufficiently clear why the respective editors consider it necessary to include the image and why they do not consider it replaceable with alternatives, such as text, or an equally non-free prison mugshot.  Sandstein  10:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Overturn to No consensus, with no prejudice agaisnt relisting if anyone so Chooses, but no automatic relisting. While not explicitly citing the NFCC, those in favor of keep did make policy-based reasons clear enough that they should not have been discounted, in my view. I must agree with the nomination on the issue of "precedent" here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn to keep Sandstein, there are a number of editors who believe that NFCC questions should default to delete, because copyright. It's unfortunate that they're trying to impair our coverage of current events based on their own particular interpretations. Jclemens (talk) 03:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse as closing administrator. Please see my initial response to Sandstein's query. DESiegel, as I explained on my talk page, only one editor made an attempt to address NFCC, and specifically WP:NFCC#1. However, that was not the nominator's issue with the image, who pointed that out and was accused of bludgeoning the process in doing so. Sandstein stated: "It's normal practice to illustrate biographies of significant public figures" in the context of articles about the incidents and not the perpetrator. This is, to the best of my knowledge, not true. This also not policy, nor does it address policy – NFCC or otherwise. Philosopher and Doctor Papa Jones cited Dennis Brown's keep argument, who was addressed the wrong criterion to begin with, and Sandstein's keep argument, which failed to address any policy to any agree, for his own keep argument. AGreatPhoenixSunsFan's argument boiled down to "just showing a picture of the attacker in question shouldn't be a reason for deleting an image altogether", and again failed to cite policy for this. zzuuzz's "replace" comment and El cid, el campeador's "remove" argument were both misguided, so I discounted those entirely. What I was left with: Fourthords's (nominator) arguments citing policy, George Ho's argument citing policy, and Quackslikeaduck's agreeing with George. I did not see a discussion that would have resulted in "no consensus", let alone "keep". xplicit 13:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn to non-consensus (which defaults to keep) though my own actual view is keep. The NFCC restrictions on article use are very restrictive. In interpreting them, we need to avoid making them yet more restrictive beyond the bounds of a reasonable interpretation. I've always though WP should make some attempt at consistency, but one previous afd discussion is not sufficient for binding precedent in a general interpretation. DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse Just for reference, I am aware of one other discussion about this type of non-free use at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 26#File:Chris Mercer.jpg. I also don't think seeing the picture of Hodgkinson in this case improves the reader's understanding of the article content to such a degree that not seeing it would be detrimental to that understanding. If there was something particularly notable about his appearance that was related to this shooting that was covered in reliable sources, then perhaps using the image would be OK. There is, however, nothing in 2017 Congressional baseball shooting#Perpetrator that mentions his appearance at all. I think the arguments against this type of non-free use are much stronger in this case, just as they were much stronger for File:Chris Mercer.jpg and File:Rodger small.png, in that none of the Hodgkinson's actions or beliefs seem to be in any way related to his physical appearance so I don't see how WP:NFCC#8 or even WP:FREER are met. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse NFCC is absolutely not an obscure policy, it's just one that is not always easy to understand. The closure was correct in light of the arguments: there is no standard practice of including non-free images of non-notable perps for crimes (if you can get a free image, that's different), because that fails NFCC#1. If the perp becomes notable on their own and they're going to be incarcerated for life, making a free replacement likely impossible, then we could take about an image on the standalone article. --MASEM (t) 04:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
    • But he's not incarcerated for life... he's dead. Jclemens (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Relist I think the close was rather defective and the closing administrator should have participated in the discussion rather than trying to close it. Most of the closing statement talks about an "established precedent" which doesn't seem to have been mentioned up to that point. This would be a reasonable thing to do if this "established precedent" was a policy, guideline or even a major RFC but it's just something the same admin wrote while closing a similar discussion 18 months ago and therefore isn't much of a precedent at all, much less an "established" one. I do think that discussion was leaning towards deletion, if only because there wasn't much effort to rebut the NFCC#8 concerns, but that was largely down to the number of other issues raised (such as NFCC#1 concerns, which were addressed). A relist would help to focus on that issue. Hut 8.5 06:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse, reasonable outcome of a debate where no strong arguments were made that WP:NFCC#8 was met. —Kusma (t·c) 12:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak endorse. This is not an area of expertise for me, but my reading of the WP:NFCC says to me that in close cases, we should err on the side of deletion. That page says:
    • using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under the fair use provisions in United States copyright law
    • only where all 10 of the following criteria are met
Given that, its seems to me that no consensus (which you could reasonably argue would have been a better close) in copyright cases, really should default to delete, not to keep, as it usually the case. Adittedly, that doesn't appear to be the official policy, and given that, the next best thing would be to err on the side of deletion.
On a different point, i'm a little concerned about the appeal to precedent in the close. Not so much because I think every decision needs to stand on its own, but because the precedent being cited was the closer's own. A change of wording from precedent to something like, as I said in .... would have been more transparent. That's not a reason by itself to overturn the close, but it is something that could have been done better.
Lastly, I'm concerned that nobody appears to have done the research to see if we have permission. Write to whoever we believe to be the copyright holder and ask for permission to use it. One of three things are likely to happen. One, permission will be granted. Two, permission will be denied. Three, copyright will be disavowed. In any of those cases, we'll have an authoritative answer. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion There's several pertinent issues here, all of which point to a clear cut case to delete and keep deleted. (1) NFCC no consensus does not default to keep; This is in fact codified in the policy, though it may not seem clear at first pass. WP:NFCC says "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale" If the people wishing to retain NFCC can not gain consensus the image has a valid use rationale, it must go. That's the default, not keep. I've found references to this being the case dating back at least as far as 2008. It's how we do things with regards to NFCC material. (2) NFCC policy isn't technical and obscure; There are many policies on this project which require experience to understand. Experience required <> technical/obscure. Further, it can hardly be described as "obscure" when the guideline and policy are linked at Wikipedia:Five pillars, in Template:Non-free use rationale which is widely used on the vast majority of non-free images here, and even at the upload wizard. Even if it were somehow "obscure", a policy being obscure doesn't make it less of a policy. (3) FfD being poorly attended does not undermine its conclusions; Saying FfD isn't a valid community consensus tool uses an extremely broad paintbrush that would undermine every single FfD. It is our standing consensus tool for evaluating the presence of images on the project until such time as it is replaced or deleted itself. Its conclusions are consensus bound. While consensus can change, the conclusions there stand until such time as consensus does in fact change, or it is overturned here at DRV. (4) To the merits of the image itself; DRV isn't the place for such discussions, as DRV isn't a second chance FfD. That said, deletion is effectively mandatory here; the perpetrator has no independent-of-incident notability warranting an independent article. The 2017 Congressional baseball shooting article is most emphatically NOT his biography page. His visual appearance is not necessary for a person to understand the section of the article that discusses him, thus failing WP:NFCC #8. Not having an image of him on this incident article does not limit the article in any respect, as his visual depiction is not of importance. IF he had an article about himself only, an image would be warranted in the infobox, and that image could be non-free. But not on the incident article, unless someone can show a reliable source that indicates his visual appearance is somehow important to the crimes he has committed such that we have to have an image to understand that visual appearance. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion In addition to the policy arguments raised above, particularly failing WP:NFCC #8, I suggest that our guidelines are also helpful in sorting out cases such as this where an individual may be discussed in a section of an article but does not merit a full biographical article. WP:NFCI #10 notes the appropriateness of using "Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely." (emphasis added) The article versus section distinction is a good one for judging the contextual significance and usefulness of providing a non-free image. Note that a photo of a deceased perpetrator can become contextually significant where the photograph itself has become part of the story. See, e.g., Boston_Marathon_bombing#Release_of_suspect_photos. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Relist I found that discussion to lack much of any direct reference to policy and the close itself should have been a !vote. Given the high visibility of the topic, I think we need a better discussion. And can expect one after this listing at DRV. Hobit (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse - I know people are concerned about the closure and the need to use the non-free image of the perpetrator. However, as said, we should not display an image to treat the current event article as a page of images. Instead, we should encourage readers to take free content seriously and to realize that Wikipedia is a free-content encyclopedia. Yes, it is an encyclopedia. (There are visual encyclopedias, yet Wikipedia ain't one. Someday, there may be Visual Wikipedia... if copyright laws allow it.) Revisiting NFCC#8 without rehashing old arguments from FFD discussion, the readers are expected to read the article and comprehend the topic. (Well, I didn't explain why else the image should be deleted.) Excluding readers who would read just the lead and then move on (MOS:LEAD), let's focus on those wanting to read the section about the perpetrator himself. Actually, readers who want to learn about just the perpetrator and not more about the event may not be the article's main target. Indeed, the article intends to target those who want learn more about the event, not about the perpetrator. That's it. Those reading the article to learn about the event would already understand the event without this image, which still doesn't increase their own understanding of the event. If the event receives a lot of press coverage, then readers would already know about the event and find the perpetrator image unnecessary. Meanwhile, there are other free multimedia contents, like the videos. Also, there are free images of Scalise and the baseball game itself. No big loss to me. --George Ho (talk) 12:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that the particular relevance of the image is that it (immediately) illustrates that the perpetrator was a white man - something I think not touched on in the text of the article – and perhaps for good reasons: maybe there are no sources addressing that issue in particular, which in itself might be indicative of how much "white man" is still considered the default state of humanity in the US and elsewhere. Given America's difficult racial history and politics, and the political nature of the crime, the perpetrator's skin color can't help but color - pardon the pun - readers' assessment of events; it should therefore be included in a comprehensive treatment of the event.  Sandstein  13:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • While potentially interesting, unless you can provide reliable sources indicating his racial background is somehow pertinent to this crime, including his image solely for the sake of demonstrating he is white is a non-starter. As is, there's nothing in the article indicating race as being pertinent. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the above post only goes to show that this close was the correct and only one that could've been made. The reader does not need to see any image of Hodgkinson to understand he was white any more than the reader would need to see an image of him to understand he was male. That information can be more than adequately expressed by text alone. As for the stuff about the "white man" being the "default state of humanity", I agree with Hammersoft in that such a thing might be an interesting take on this terrible event, but Wikipedia is not supposed to be about promoting interesting takes on things. The reason for using the image should only be that there was something about it which was specifically the subject of critical commentary in reliable sources; it should not be that we hope that the reader sees the image and then decides to interpret it and the event in a particular way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, no. We use images, generally speaking, where they are useful to illustrate or complement the text. Fair-use images do need to additionally pass the WP:NFCCP, but the image being "specifically the subject of critical commentary in reliable sources" is not as such required. What the policy requires, to the extent relevant here, is "contextual significance" (#8), and it is this significance that I think the FfD discussion and my comment above establish. Even absent any racial or political aspect, "what did the guy look like who did this?" is such a natural impulse of readers to want to know, especially in our media-saturated age, that I think any serious treatment of the issue is just fundamentally incomplete without an image; and it is this editorial consideration that establishes the required significance of the image.  Sandstein  16:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Such a justification, that we should illustrate where we can due to media saturation in this age, would justify the use of any non-free image in any context on the project. Regardless, such discussion as this is moot; DRV is not a second chance FfD. Discussing the merits of the image in the context where it was is not appropriate for a DRV. The issue at hand is whether the deletion discussion was closed on reasonable grounds and enacted properly. The closer concluded there was consensus to delete. Some might read that FfD and conclude there was no consensus. I dare say nobody would conclude there was consensus to keep. Closed as delete, it was deleted. As established by myself and others above, a no consensus on a non-free image defaults to delete. If it were re-closed as no consensus, the outcome would be the same; the file would be deleted. The FfD was closed on proper grounds, and the image was deleted in accordance with appropriate procedures to that effect. There's nothing to act on here. If you would like to discuss with me why this image fails WP:NFCC #8, I invite you to do so on my talk page. You would of course be welcome to ping anyone else to the discussion that you think is appropriate. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @Sandstein: I found two sources discussing Hodgkinson's race, but the sources were two African-American males. If I use those sources, they should belong in the "Reactions" section, not the "Perpetrator" section, which formerly included this image. No other sources emphasized or sensationalized Hodgkinson's race. Therefore, I can't include those per WP:UNDUE; very few sources emphasize his race... well, I found The Root writer's article better written and more eloquent than the other. However, they're not worth including yet. Also, as said before, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia's intent is giving readers general knowledge. In this case, the article's intent is giving readers general knowledge about the shooting itself. It does not intend to emphasize the guy's ethnicity, and the image does not add anything to effectively help readers understand the event but to distract readers into looking at his ethnicity. I could include the phrase "white male", but that doesn't help make the image more effective either. Meanwhile, any one of you can read Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman, and other articles related to them. Therefore, their ethnicities are better covered in those related articles, while Hodgkinson's... aren't. --George Ho (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

22 June 2017[edit]

Draft:Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo[edit]

Draft:Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The subject is notable per WP:GNG. There are Wikipedia articles about works of art that have received much, much less coverage. This article was nominated for deletion very soon after its creation, and editors voted to delete the article as a stub. The draft has been expanded, and sourcing clearly shows notability. I anticipate several editors who participated in the AfD discussion will return to reiterate their previously expressed opinions, but I'm hoping some uninvolved editors will cast a vote to overturn the deletion after assessing sourcing. --Another Believer (Talk) 14:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Additional sources to add to the article, not counting others published since April
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure - DRV is not a place to re-hash the same arguments already made at AfD. The consensus in the discussion was pretty clear cut, so absent any new information there is no reason to overturn this decision. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Absent any new information? The draft has been expanded, and there are more sources on the talk page, and there has been more coverage since its unveiling. And these are just the English-languages sources. Not to mention, the artist has since created a bust of Gareth Bale, so there are many more recent sources revisiting his earlier work. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure - It still does not make it notable. Kante4 (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
    • What, sources don't make it notable? That's our definition of notable, yes? Hobit (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure It's still not notable. Number 57 16:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure Still not notable. No actual addition of substance since AFD, the majority of the article is verbatim quotes from mostly minor outlets, and the few major outlet quotes are a simple review of social media's reaction to the bust. No real mention since a couple of days after the reveal, indicating the AFD wasn't too soon. --SuperJew (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure - good close. GiantSnowman 17:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure - uninvolved in original discussion, and can tell you right now that at best this gets a by-line in Cristiano Ronaldo's main article. I have serious misgivings that even then, on the scale of things, this is not a particularly notable feature of CR's career. Koncorde (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Expanding on entry seeing as there are some new comments.
  • 1. There is an awful lot of art in the world, and an awful lot of bad art. Wikipedia is not a repository of bad art.
  • 2. The piece was crafted for Cristiano Ronaldo International Airport and it's notability is associated with that airports renaming and the ceremony. If the statue is referenced, it should be merged with that article (and doesn't need anywhere near the amount of cruft).
  • 3. People talk below about Michael Jackson's statue outside Fulham. This is another example of WP:OTHERSTUFF. It wasn't notable to the club's ground in particular beyond kitsch value, and ended up being forced into a stub of its own which collected dross. Its strangeness of location lent it some degree of notability, which is why I could kinda see how it got argued through. Jackson's statue for HIStory meanwhile should be a stub for the album, but as the artist is notable and it went on a notable world tour of its own, then it has a different set of criteria.
  • 4. The editor contributes a link to other banal art, of which very few have their own article (I don't believe any do) somewhat undoing the argument.
  • 5. Any argument regarding the Gareth Bale sculpt should also take into consideration that it is an advertising ploy by a major betting chain. It is again not notable art, nor notable to Bale, it is perhaps relevant to PaddyPower, or if the artist was to have his own article.
  • 6. Filling an article with lots of words is nice and all, but it's a bad article, and very poor from an encyclopedic point of view. It is a blatant case of WP:RECENTISM as are most arguments in support.
At most this article is a sentence or two at the Airport, and references under Rinaldo's a page by the airport being named in his honour, but we should not be crufting this kind of stuff. Koncorde (talk) 08:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @Number 57: In the AfD discussion, you said, "Whilst the bust is hilariously bad and has received quite a bit of media coverage, it isn't separately noteworthy to the subject." Here, you say, "It's still not notable." Can you explain how the subject isn't notable, or is simply saying "not notable" a suitable argument?
  • @SuperJew: In the AfD discussion, you said the subject was not notable enough for a standalone article. I suppose you provide some further explanation for your vote above, but I wouldn't call the publications used in the draft minor. In fact, I don't think any of the sources used are inappropriate or non-notable, and they all have Wikipedia articles of their own. How are these minor publications?
Most of these articles are just re-iterations of the same comments, published in the few days after the reveal, and round-ups of social media trying to be funny about the bust. The article doesn't actually have content - it's mostly verbatim quotes from the media. Minor I meant things like Hindustan Times, Daily Beast and tabloids. --SuperJew (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @Kante4: In the AfD discussion, you said the subject was "not notable enough", and above you said, It still does not make it notable". Can you explain how the subject isn't notable, or is simply saying "not notable" a suitable argument?
  • @GiantSnowman: In the AfD discussion, you simply said, "does not merit a separate article". Above you say just "good close". Can you explain how the subject isn't notable, or is simply saying "not notable" a suitable argument?
IMO, this work of art has received a suitable amount of coverage in reliable sources to justify a standalone article. This draft is much longer than the article that was marked for AfD, and there are quite a few additional sources posted on the draft's talk page. Not to mention, there are more sources to add that have been published since April. I'd appreciate more detailed reasons why this draft is not appropriate for Wikipedia.
I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but I'm frustrated that I'm having to fight an uphill battle to publish an article with this much sourcing when I'm not seeing detailed reasons, based on policy, for its removal. I know I'm probably coming across as a sore loser, and here I was told to "move on", but I have been through the process of saving a deleted article before (which was promoted to Good status), and I do mean well by coming to this venue to request reevaluation. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Overturn - the varied and extent of the coverage the topic of the article has received passes WP:GNG in my opinion although its overall significance to Cristiano Ronaldo's carrier is another matter. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
    • @Inter&anthro: could you be more explicit about which side you're arguing? In these discussions, people generally either say, endorse, which means they think the deletion was correct, or overturn, which means they think the deletion was in error. It's not entirely clear reading your comments which of those you're arguing for. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi RoySmith I apologize I am unfamiliar with the process, I meant to say that I was supporting the recreation of this article. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks. No worries about being unfamiliar. We're happy to have new people get involved in the project. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support reinstatement The notability is mainly based on the avalanche of mocking comments in the mainstream media and social media that followed its unveiling. This was an noteworthy phenomenon, and it has made this sculpture notorious, which is a form of notability. We should not be swayed by this being called "bad art". It might be considered part of a movement of kitsch or banal art, which could include:
This is to give some context to Santos's sculpture, which I do not rate as having the quality of Koons' work. This sculpture follows a style that has been established for other football-related sculptures, see here.
Santos's sculpture of Gareth Bale opens the possibility of covering both these sculptures in an article on the sculptor. However, his sculpture of Ronaldo is more notable than its sculptor, and I support the promotion of Draft:Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo to article space. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Moot You don't need to be at DRV to put this back into mainspace. Several new references have been added since the close, including New York Times, BBC, Independent, and Telegraph. That appears to solidly establish the GNG is met for the topic just with the new references! Several arguments made in the AfD were non-policy-based (e.g., NOTNEWS never applied at all), and I am not convinced by the arguments supporting the original AfD close. I'll further note that the original AfD closer is not an administrator, and likely should not have closed the contested AfD in the first place... Jclemens (talk) 07:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Relist or recreate there are enough new sources that it shouldn't be speedied as a recreation. So I'd say just recreate it. But, I'm going to guess that _someone_ will still speedy it. From an editorial viewpoint, I don't think we need this article. From a policy viewpoint, there is no policy preventing it from existing as WP:N appears to be met in spades. I personally would prefer we leave this merged into the biography with a sentence or two. But DRV is about policy, not my preferences. Recreate it and watch the merge discussion on the talk page result in a merger again. Hobit (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion - the sources in the article, whilst numerous, basically cover just two days and the remaining sources above provide little information other than rehashing previous comment. Fenix down (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

21 June 2017[edit]

Draft:Lely (Company)[edit]

Draft:Lely (Company) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Page was in Draft, still actively work in progress. I worked according to Wikipedia's guidelines and regulations, and have no intention of breaking them. As explained to admin, I was drafting a page about a notable company which I can further explain. This is an internationally active company which already has Wikipedia pages in other languages. Attempt to reason with the respective admin failed, unfortunately, I have not heard back since. I feel disappointed and slightly offended. I do not see any reason why this company does not deserve a page on English Wikipedia, nor do I understand why any chance to draft such a page should be nipped in the bud. Dvanleerdam (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

  • The page was deleted under WP:CSD#G11, which means that it was promoting the subject. I can see why the deleting admin came to this conclusion: despite being only 53 words long it described the company as a "leading" manufacturer and gave a series of impressive statistics about how big the company was. This is considered a serious problem even with drafts, as a promotional draft still acts to promote the company even though it's only a draft. Given your user page (which says you're a contractor who works with this company) I suggest you read our guidelines on conflict of interest. Hut 8.5 18:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd have speedied this if it were in mainspace, though I'd have thought it was borderline. In draftspace, it wasn't so promotional that it needed to be tagged within two minutes of creation and deleted within half an hour. —Cryptic 18:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn and Restore to draft space. Those statistics, while possibly serving a promotional purpose, are presumably objective facts, and "leading" while a judgement, is the kind of judgement often included in valid company articles (although it should be sourced, as should the stats). Had I seen this tagged for G11 in mainspace, I would have declined the speedy and warned the tagger, and I am surprised atFortuna Imperatrix Mundi for tagging this in draft space, where somewhat more leeway should be given. I am even more suprised at Jimfbleak for doing the dewletion. There does seem to be a COI here, but that is not a reason to delete, speedy or otherwise. G11 is for blatent promotionalism, requiring a total rewrite, which in my view this was not even close to. That said, Dvanleerdam, deletion for promotional content never reflects on the validity of the subject, merely on how it is being described. A more objective version should always handle a proper G11 deletion. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Lely (company) war speedied from mainspace in 2011 for the same reason.
    User:Dvanleerdam, the guideline covering the usual decision process for whether this company will ever be suitable for inclusion is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), beginning with the statement: "... has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". Wikipedia is not a directory of all companies, or of all big companies, successful companies, good companies, or any other variation of selection, except for companies that are already the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Before starting an article on any company, be sure to have multiple such sources, each all of (1) contains significant coverage; (2) source is reliable; (3) source, author, published are independent of the company; (4) the coverage is secondary source coverage, meaning it is commentary, comparisons, analysis, etc, and is not just repeating facts. A yet better way to get started is to find coverage of the company in existing articles, and improve content making mention in those articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Overturn and restore to draft While I appreciate the vigor with which some admins go after promotional material, draft space is the one spot where we should have borderline cases (NOINDEX'ed, obviously) in the process of refining promotional copy and making it encyclopedic. Do we actually need to change CSD to say G11 doesn't apply to draft? We seem to be overturning a lot of these. Jclemens (talk) 01:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak endorse. G11 applies to drafts just as much as to any namespace. We do not want any part of Wikipedia to contain advertising. Such content can be stored offsite if really needed. While I wouldn't have deleted this text, as it doesn't strike me as blatantly promotional, the deletion was, I think, within the deleting admin's discretion because there are certainly ways in which the text can be read as promotional.  Sandstein  07:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


Recent discussions[edit]

19 June 2017[edit]

18 June 2017[edit]

16 June 2017[edit]

14 June 2017[edit]

13 June 2017[edit]

Archive[edit]

2017
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2016
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2015
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2014
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2013
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2012
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2011
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2010
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2009
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2008
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2007
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2006
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December