Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 March 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2021 March 3
2021 March 5 >

4 March 2021[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:U.S. Ambassador to Sweden Kenneth Alan Howery credentials presentation, November 2019.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

This was originally marked for deletion because it "does not add to the understanding" of the relevant article text. This assertion is incorrect, as the photo does in fact add visual value and understanding to the "presented his credentials" text, which is a vague term of art that doesn't by itself make clear that the article subject met the King of Sweden in person (versus presented the credentials virtually, through an aide, etc.), shook the King's hand, that the event took place in a formal setting, etc. This is especially important in the diplomatic context, where interpersonal relationships are critical, and visuals--including the image in question--provide invaluable context about the depth and nature of those relationships. The file clearly satisfies the WP:NFCC#1 policy for these reasons. Another user separately commented "there may well be a PD-USgovt photo of the event," an assumption without any supporting evidence that my research has determined to be false, as only the only photographer present at the event was the Royal Court photographer who took the image in question; no media or USG photos exist. Therefore the file meets the WP:NFCC#8 policy as well. GijsVisser (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not fond of how FfD works, but I feel like the result is correct here. I think it would be fair to say that any contextual significance can be managed in a single sentence. Hobit (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply: @Hobit: – you can't possible capture all of the nuance of the photo in a single sentence -- and especially without injecting bias/opinion into it. Did the King look happy to meet the Ambassador? Was he smiling? Did his handshake look strong? Was the Ambassador flustered? These are all questions a reader can only answer for themselves with the benefit of the photo. And again, in a diplomatic context, this is a highly significant moment that is very worthy of a photo. GijsVisser (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Always the case, for sure. A picture worth a 1000 words and all that. If you'd like to point me at the picture, I can take a look. But unless there is something really special that's relevant to the article, the words seem like they'd be enough. Hobit (talk) 03:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's currently the second image here, captioned "Ambassador Kenneth Alan Howery is received...". —Cryptic 05:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t see the image as having any value beyond mere illustration that the ambassador was greeted by the king in the throne room. Including non-free content like this is not desirable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The FfD discussion was light, but wasn't clearly erroneous. NFCC exists for a reason, and three uninvolved users all came to the conclusion this was in violation. I haven't seen the image in context, but the rationale makes sense to me. SportingFlyer T·C 23:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I think the FFD came to the right conclusion here. The image is of the subject shaking hands with the King of Sweden, with both of them in formal dress. The image itself wasn't the subject of any sourced commentary in the article and doesn't convey anything which can't be conveyed through text. The fact that this was an in person ceremony could definitely be conveyed through text: "he presented his credentials in a formal ceremony to the King of Sweden..." I don't really see how this picture of two men shaking hands tells us anything useful about Swedish-American relations either. Hut 8.5 08:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The FFD discussion has come to the right conclusion. The free image File:Ambassador Ken Howery Swearing-In.jpg is more than sufficient to illustrate the article and the removal of the fair-use image we are discussing in no way detracts from readers' understanding of the article. I am not necessarily convinced on the NFCC1 point, but NFCC8 is clearly not met. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. GijsVisser (talk · contribs), I strongly recommend that you try having this discussion with the deleting admin first, before coming here to argue that something is being done wrong. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I haven't seen the deleted image, but the discussion at FFD makes clear that the issue is non-free content, and the close properly reflects the consensus at FFD, which was about non-free content. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment the image can be seen as the second main photo on https://www.kungahuset.se/royalcourt/latestnews/2019/2019/thekingreceivesforeignambassadors.5.4f00651a16e3a89c9d018d7.html . It was to be used on Ken Howery according to the fair use rationale. I don't think it is required for understanding the topic, as a description will do the job. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Teja Tanikella – deletion endorsed. Participants do not have any specific objection to a recreation as a draft provided it goes through articles for creation, but there's a strong agreement that consensus was clear and that the notability of the subject is insufficient. ~ mazca talk 18:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Teja Tanikella (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article is true description whose reality can be found more by searching online. The details are true and legit. Please kindly undelete it. I also added the sources. Thanks. TejaTanikella (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse it doesn't matter if something is true, it matters if it is notable. The discussion was correctly closed, and a quick source review shows no reversible error. SportingFlyer T·C 16:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse considering none of the people calling for deletion were disputing the truthfulness of the article and were instead arguing that the article didn’t meet the standard of WP:N this request doesn’t address the actual case made for deletion.--70.27.244.104 (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a valid closure and the right closure of the deletion discussion. Verifiability (and truth) of an article are necessary but not sufficient conditions to keep the article. Notability is also required, and was the issue in the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Creation of Draft, but reviewer will decline or reject draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - the close was valid and reflected consensus. I would not oppose a draft recreation but it must be forced to go through WP:AfC, in my opinion. Not least because it is an autobiography. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I would discourage trying to recreate it at AfC or anywhere else until the individual becomes much more notable . If it goes to AfC the likelihood is that it will be declined, because it seems obvious that notability is not yet present, DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse — Deleted due to a lack of notability, not verifiability/accuracy, furthermore consensus is quite clear. — csc-1 06:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Draft:Architecture, Culture, and Spirituality Forum – Kept deleted. It seems that consensus would have been to overturn the G11 speedy deletion, if not for the discovery that the contents of the page were also a copyright violation. Some would have restored the non-copyvio revisions, but it has been argued (and not contested) that the first revision was already a copyvio and that the subsequent revisions do not differ substantially enough to make them non-copyvio. Under these circumstances, I don't see consensus to undo the deletion. Sandstein 19:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:Architecture, Culture, and Spirituality Forum (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I have revised this page many times and tried my best to apply and follow all the Wikipedia requiremnts. By no mean I wanted to advertise anything. I am just writing about a great group who does lots of research and conferences in the field of architeure. I am not sure why my article was deleted. I have tried to used other pages as reference and my article is very similar to them. They are published and my page is deleted. Please let me know what i can do to have my article published. I really appreciate if you undelete it so I can start revising it and contribute to Wikipedia. Thank you for your time. Esmaeili.nooshin (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing there but an announcement of an event, and a series of statements sourced solely to the ACSF's own publications and website. If this group is notable, why are there no articles about it in the architectural press? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn This was not extremely promotional in tone. Just a couple of adjectives used as puffery. Sure the whole purpose of it being there might be to advertise the forum. But that is why AFC checks it through. Since it is only a draft, I would say restore it and get rid of "renowned" and "inspired". The lack of good references is not a reason to delete, but to decline. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy restore as a reasonable dispute of a G11 in draftspace. If someone wants to talk about it, have the conversation. Use it’s talk page, or MfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore as not extremely promotional, a chance to rewrite is reasonable. Stifle (talk) 11:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep deleted per Cryptic below as it seems that all versions derive from a copyvio. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to draft space because speedy deletions in general and G11 are for unambiguous cases, and there seems to be reasonable doubt by reasonable editors. If the event does not satisfy event notability, a reviewer will decline it, or reject it in an unambiguous case. If other editors think it is blatant G11 spam, they can nominate it for MFD, citing its promotional content. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first revision's a copyvio of this. Though I've only skimmed later revisions, they seem to have improved on it incrementally rather than rewriting wholesale, making it a derivative work. Keep deleted. —Cryptic 06:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore (non-copyvio revisions) to draftspace, to allow a chance to fix/rewrite it to meet our policies. — csc-1 06:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore non copy-vio. I consider them notable , and if a proper article is written I will accept it. DGG ( talk ) 16:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse since it doesn't appear there's a non-copyright violation to revert to, per the comments above. SportingFlyer T·C 13:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Another draft exists at Draft:Architecture, Culture, and Spirituality Forum (ACSF). Here are some relevant edits:
    1. In this 30 December 2020 edit, Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs) wrote "Note: OTRS permission in ticket:2020122910007951" in reference to ticket:2020122910007951.
    2. In this 30 December 2020 edit, Krd (talk · contribs) added this template: CC-notice|bysa3|Architecture, Culture, and Spirituality Forum|otrs=1.
    3. In this 30 December 2020 edit, Krd (talk · contribs) added this template: ConfirmationOTRS|source=http://www.acsforum.org/mission-and-history/|otrs=2020122910007951|license=dual.
    I needed to remove the template links because I was triggering Special:AbuseFilter/642.

    ticket:2020122910007951 released http://www.acsforum.org/mission-and-history/ under a free license. Did ticket:2020122910007951 release https://www.acsforum.org/who-we-are/ under a free license?

    Cunard (talk) 07:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2021_March_4&oldid=1039505769"