Sgwrs:IMMAGINE&POESIA

The article is spam. --Elm 20:15, 2 Mai 2011 (UTC)

Care to substantiate that claim? Peredur ap Rhodri 20:30, 2 Mai 2011 (UTC)

Should be deleted

Delwedd:Ferlinghetti meets Immagine&Poesia representatives.jpg

Photoshopping to claim a connection

This article is part of a cross-wiki campaign to promote the movement. The article is already deleted on english, french, german, swedish, norwegian and even on the italian (!) wiki, and is discussed other places as well.

Most part of the campaign is performed by only 3 users - who hasn't written about many other things on Wikipedia:

• Angler45,
• Alessandroga80 and
• Aeron10

Please also note that this picture, that is a part of the cross wiki campaign is a hoax; photoshopped to give the impression that two representatives from I&P met the known poet Ferlinghetti. See commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ferlinghetti meets Immagine&Poesia representatives.jpg, and ask Angler45 for an explanation. Bw --Orland (sgwrs) 12:17, 12 Mawrth 2016 (UTC)

I have taken your Delete Template off the article, as no one bothered to answer Peredur ap Rhodri, who asked for reasons for deletion since 2 May 2011 (see above). On en-wiki there was a discussion about the article on enwiki. ONLY 3 (THREE) users wanted to delete; 7 (SEVEN) users wanted to keep. The article was DELETED. What beautiful democracy you have on en-wiki! Having 'cross-wiki campaign to promote the movement' in my view is a good thing! It's a non-profit movement, so why not! Aren't you operating the same - a cross-wiki campaign to attack the movement? The fact that a contributor focuses on his speciality, his interest shouldn't either be cause for deletion! Lastly, the fact that it's been taken down on en-wiki or any other xx-wiki has no relevance on cy-wiki. We have our own rules on notablility thank you. That's my view anyway, so let's see if any one else agrees with you. Llywelyn2000 (sgwrs) 13:40, 12 Mawrth 2016 (UTC)

@Llywelyn2000: In my opinion, I am defending Wikipedia and its reputation from promotional abuse, while you are letting them use Wikipedia to promote themselves. You may be right about the 3-7 votes on en:wp, but then you are ignoring

1. all the other discussions with several other voters, in german, swedish, italian, french, danish etc wp
2. the use of sock puppets in such discussions generally; as well as the votes of the campaigners, who are naturally defending their work. In the english discussion, 2 of the 7 pro-voters were broad experienced users, while 4 of them are users almost only contributing to this article worldwide (3 metioned above and RiverTeifi). The 7th was a user now blocked for abusing wp for spam or promotion.
3. decisions by other administrators to delete
4. the photo hoax

After all, I'm only a guest here, so you are probably in your good right to remove my deletion request. My suggestion is however that you let your fellow administrators look at this too. Have a good weekend; bw --Orland (sgwrs) 14:59, 12 Mawrth 2016 (UTC)

@Orland, Ham II: Thanks Orland. I'll look into it fully; I'd also like to know what others think especially User:Ham. I do not question your integrity here and thank you for your work. Llywelyn2000 (sgwrs) 08:04, 13 Mawrth 2016 (UTC)

@Orland, Llywelyn2000: I've looked at Wicipedia:Amlygrwydd and it seems that we don't have any policy on the notability of organisations, so this is a difficult one to call. Although it's nothing to do with the cywiki article, the fact that members of the movement resort to photoshopping themselves into a photo of a notable poet doesn't fill me with confidence. The strongest argument for their being notable enough for this wiki might be the exhibition at Canolfan Dylan Thomas; I think we could probably accept any movement or artist who has had a dedicated exhibition at one of the major museums or art galleries in Wales. Again, I stress that there's no hard policy on this. But for an art movement I'd think that's the equivalent of the "covered in the national press" criterion we have for individual people. Ham II (sgwrs) 08:57, 14 Mawrth 2016 (UTC)

Diolch Ham. As you say, we haven't included the image in our article, and therefore it should not be a factor in our decision. This publishing house also has an article on IMMAGINE&POESIA as does worldart.info and Canolfan Dylan Thomas; that notable enough for me! Llywelyn2000 (sgwrs) 09:13, 14 Mawrth 2016 (UTC)