Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore Tyler Print Institute


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy moved back to draft space. Favonian (talk) 11:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Singapore Tyler Print Institute

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a draft that was, in my view, accepted too early from the WP:AFC scheme. I am proposing it for return to the Draft: namespace.

I have started to assess the alleged references. Our criteria are simple: We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS. The references shown rarely meet these criteria, all of which must be fulfilled simultaneously. I did not complete the review of references, considering instead, that the article and the WP:COI contributing editor would be better served by a return to Draft: namespace, a namespace where a COI editor may work with reviewers to remove fluff, clutter and puffery, and where, to an extent, COI is tolerated.

In addition to very poor referencing, the article is full of trade puffery, and attempts to inherit notability from the artists who have exhibited there. Notability is not inherited. In short it is a badly referenced advert. WP:BOMBARD has been used to perplex and confuse the editor who looks and sees references, and will investigate no further than seeing a list. We need quality, not quantity.

In short we do the project and the STPI a better service by returning this to the Draft: namespace and by also returning the review history to the head of the draft once moved back there. We have done this editor no favours by migrating the draft too early. Fiddle  Faddle  10:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment The contributing editor has migrated this back to Draft: themselves. This is a good outcome, but I have no idea, now, what to do with this discussion, nor the AFD banner on the draft. I suspect closing this myself is a poor use of procedure, and I have no idea how to do it anyway.  Fiddle   Faddle  10:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.