Talk:Sinem Banna

Possible deletion of article
This article also includes a minor degree of copyright violation of https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2009/04/06/damaged-san-mateo-sculpture-needs-funding-for-repairs/ and http://www.cityartsofsanmateo.org/art_gallery_of_san_mateo.htm. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

This page should not be speedy deleted because...
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --Misshavisham (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm having trouble understanding if "Promotion" being listed as reason for deletion is an error or not. I've checked the Wikipedia page on "promotion" and am experiencing even greater confusion regarding how this article may come across as falling under any of the listed "Promotional" subcategories. I was hoping to submit a response on this "contest the deletion" section, however, I am not quite sure what to respond to, and am confused as to what exactly was being referenced. As the Wiki page unpacks "Promotion" as "advocacy, propaganda, recruitment, opinion pieces, scandal mongering, self-promotion, and advertising, marketing, or public relations", I'm wondering what the correlation may be here between this criteria, and the article in question. I didn't include any personal opinions... No line in the article is opinion based or sways from an objective statement. Further, as I do not know the artist personally, I'm quite confused as to how, or what, I, or this article, might be promoting. Am I misunderstanding the note? There are a couple of "not in citation given" edits that have been recently added to the page-- is this what is being referenced? If so, most all of these are in error, with the exception of perhaps two-- which I have, since, been in the process of adjusting. I'd love to send exact page numbers or screenshots from said citations if the trouble has arisen from locating the information within each reference. Beyond this, I'm a little lost as to how else to respond when I can't find anything else that might have been construed as "promotional". Any and all help offered would be greatly appreciated. As I said, I'm new here and spent some time working on this one. Going forward, I wouldn't want to be repeatedly making an error to which I'm completely ignorant. In the meantime, I'm open and eager to understand the article's issue, and to make the needed modifications. Thanks very much in advance.

Misshavisham (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) --Misshavisham (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe that material from public domain sources are not a violation of copyright policy. The first link included is an article in a newspaper. This is in accordance with the copyright policy. The second source, though holding a similarly compatible license, is wholly aware of, and grants direct allowance to, said reference. Both sources are on public domain with licenses that work in accordance with Wikipedia's copyright policy and can be fully verified. I cannot find any copyright violation within either of these sources.

Misshavisham (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) --Misshavisham (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

As said above "encyclopedic content must be verifiable". This is what distinguishes it from warranting titles of "opinion based", or "self promotional". This article has 53 sources. All of which are valid and verifiable. Furthermore each sentence in this article has a direct citation to a source under which the exact statement can be found. The article does not contain a single sentence that so much as suggestsa syntax or structure swaying towards embellishment, praise, or any means of a subjective perspective. In fact, no such adjectives are used even once throughout the article. Each statement links to a source and does not offer any magnitude of commentary on either the Artist's work, or the Artist in subject herself. Moreover, as the author of the page, I do not know the Artist in subject, personally. And have no necessity, nor desire, nor capability to produce "promotional" work. If encyclopedic content is a collection of verifiable sources on a certain subject, then there is no clear reason as to why this article may be, in any way, seen as "promotional", or anything beyond a public accumulation of sources on public domain, in accordance with the copyright policy.

Misshavisham (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)