User:Outfoxedkc/sandbox ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

This page was submitted to WP:AfC. I deleted it under WP:G11. The author, Outfoxedkc, contested this on my talk page and seems unwilling to accept my explanation of why it was deleted. Rather than continue what appears to be a pointless discussion, I'm bringing my deletion here for review. I'll tempundelete it in a moment. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply

I see this has been re-created at Draft:Chesley Brown International -- RoySmith (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. With pages like this it's probably not useful to get into a debate with the creator about whether they're editing for pay or otherwise have a conflict of interest. The easier course is to point to the fact that wikipedia does not accept promotional articles, no matter who writes them. This page is replete with corporate puffery: "In 2006, Chesley Brown once again set an industry standard"; "By 2003, Chesley Brown had grown from an organization of just one, to a multimillion dollar company with over 500 employees in 27 states and three countries"; "They introduced the Client Partner Program, which provides security management as a critical component of property management, considered an innovation at the time." Squarely within G11. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 21:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse looks like a perfectly reasonable deletion to me, practically every sentence in the article is written to present the company in a relentlessly positive light and the overall effect is to make it sound like a piece of marketing for the company. That's the exact opposite of what Wikipedia articles are supposed to be like. Fixing the problem would have required a near-total rewrite. Hut 8.5 21:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Having read the selected quotes, I don't need to see the rest of the page. It is G11. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the clarification. That's all I was looking for. Having an explanation is helpful for understanding and improving. Outfoxedkc ( talk) 21:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• A reasonable contest of your G11 should see you undelete and nominate at MfD, not bring it to DRV. Contested speedies should be speedy listed at XfD. This topic looks very unlikely to meet WP:CORP. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply

File:Venera9.png ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

This image, copyrighted by the Russian space program, was the only image of the surface of Venus on wiki, and one of the few that exists in the world. Following an extensive FfD discussion in 2016 with input from 6 editors (+closer), the image was kept at Venus, with no statements in favor of deletion besides the nom. When the image reappeared at FfD last December with a nom raising no new issues (and also based on a false assertion since the image is in fact specifically mentioned in Venus), it garnered no discussion beyond a neutral reference to the prior FfD. Despite this, it was deleted. This deletion was in error as there was no indication that the consensus established in 2016 had changed. The FfD should have been relisted again or closed as no consensus instead. A2soup ( talk) 07:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment I don't see any indication that this was discussed with the closer, User:Fastily, so pinging them here. My first reaction is that the first AfD was much better attended and argued, so the second, AfD, which had no real input beyond the nomination, shouldn't override it. On the other hand, we tend to be very conservative with copyright claims. I'd like to hear from the closer why it was closed this way before offering an opinion. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply

I discussed it with Fastily: User_talk:Fastily/Archive_6#Deletion_of_File:Venera9.png. Their talk page archiving is just very swift. A2soup ( talk) 15:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Thanks for that pointer. Relist per Hobit. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• relist While I know FfD has a lower bar for deletion and "discussions" like this are commonly closed as delete, I think the previous FfD should must be considered and either a NC or relist outcome would have made more sense. Hobit ( talk) 15:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Relist a "discussion" with one participant shouldn't overrule a much better attended discussion in which the same issues were raised. Hut 8.5 20:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Relist. “the only image of the surface of Venus” available, or the best available to use, sounds like a good fair use rationale, assuming it was used to illustrate content about the surface of Venus. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Relist as per SmokeyJoe. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Something like this might conceivably be justifiable if there was any meaningful notice that the file was being considered for deletion. It's good - great, even - that FastilyBot autonotifies the uploader, so long as the image is orphaned and the uploader's made any edits in the past six years. (It wasn't and they didn't.) But it's preposterous that the first inkling that editors of Venus, a featured article, got that the image was being considered for deletion was after it was already deleted. No talkpage notice, no {{ ffdc}} in the caption, nothing. — Cryptic 04:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Yes. Considering this, change to a straight Overturn. Inadequate notification. Deletion rational plain wrong. The images were discussed directly in the article, as well as the caption speaking to the image and the article, in the version during the FfD. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Relist per above. SportingFlyer T· C 04:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply