Talk:Brame & Lorenceau Gallery

Stub
Created this stub because it was originally created with copyright, promotion, and sourcing problems, copied from the French article (fr:Galerie Brame & Lorenceau) (nominated for AfD and then speedied). It's clearly notable, however, so a stub starting from scratch seems preferable to nothing. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 18:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Sometimes I find the deletion process(es) confusing. This article was nominated at Afd and then speedy-deleted under criterion G11 advertising/promotion.  Since the CSD says, "Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub... or handled in some other way."  (emphasis added). So now it's a stub, and I wonder why one couldn't have avoided a speedy and just replaced the article with this stub in the first place? Why waste all that time and effort of the process just to get to the same result?  Mathglot (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean here. I came across the article nominated for deletion. It was entirely promotional, with some copyright issues on top. Very shortly after it was deleted, I created a stub. I presume your question was "Why didn't whoever nominated it for deletion just turn it into a stub" (because the two aren't linked -- nobody had to create a stub to replace it; the problem was a problematic article) or "why did you [referring to me] !vote delete at the AfD if you were going to create a stub anyway" (because that would keep the promotional text and copyright issues in the article history. it was a WP:TNT). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 22:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * No, not referring to you, it was more your presumed question. Thanks for the response. Mathglot (talk) 00:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)