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 Merge.Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo should be merged to Cristiano Ronaldo International Airport and Statue of Cristiano Ronaldo to Cristiano Ronaldo.Winged Blades ^Godric 07:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo[edit]

Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Whilst the bust is hilariously bad and has received quite a bit of media coverage, it isn't separately noteworthy to the subject Cristiano Ronaldo and doesn't deserve a separate article (it could easily be covered in the in popular culture section of his article). The suggestion was made to the article's creator that they merge it into the Ronaldo article, but they've rejected this. Also nominating Statue of Cristiano Ronaldo for the same reason. Number 57 16:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that if the decision is to delete or merge, the closer also deletes Draft:Statue of Cristiano Ronaldo and Draft:Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo as they seem to have been created to pre-empt these outcomes. Number 57 18:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both There is even a Museum of Bad Art but neither of these works has the sustained coverage of notability. This is just the current week's "...and finally" story", soft news. Harambe Walks (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: Both bust and statue aren't notable enough for their own pages, but I don't think it should be deleted. Bust should be merged to Cristiano Ronaldo International Airport and statue to Cristiano Ronaldo, as both do contribute to his status and fame, especially in Madeira. --SuperJew (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable enough. A few sentences at his main article should do it. Kante4 (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as article creator. The subject has received a lot of coverage in secondary sourcing:

---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've gone ahead and re-created the article in the draft space.: Draft:Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same with Draft:Statue of Cristiano Ronaldo, though now the following error message appears at the top of the page: "This template is being used in the wrong namespace. To nominate this talk page for deletion, go to Miscellany for deletion." Apologies if moving the page was a mistake -- I am just trying to avoid wasting time by having editors participate in premature AfD discussions. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is now moot. Can we please just redirect Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo and Statue of Cristiano Ronaldo, both of which are possible search terms, to the Cristiano Ronaldo article? I didn't expect so much opposition, especially to the airport sculpture, so I can continue working in the draft space. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It won't need an extra article in the future either. Drop the stick. Kante4 (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So much for encouraging editors to expand content and create new articles... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Find something worth an article as this will not. Kante4 (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to the destinations SuperJew mentioned above. They have received coverage but I doubt they necessitate a standalone article. pbp 17:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above - per WP:NOTNEWS. There's no deadlines on Wikipedia, so why the rush to create this article? If there turns out to be sustained coverage about this statue in 6 months then I look forward to reading about it here. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as above. The bust has received a burst of "ha ha, look at this crap bust" novelty news, but there is no indication that it will have lasting significance -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Finally, something funny on Wikipedia. There's already one on a statue of him. Why can't this one stay? Greasemann (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)Greasemann[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of the other page. This one is better, and it's not a statue, it's a bust! Greasemann (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)Greasemann[reply]

Thanks, Greasemann, but I've already accepted the merge of both articles. I'll keep working on both drafts, so feel free to view those in the meantime. Note to all: Please just go ahead and merge this content and let's not waste more editors' time discussing here. I'm fine working in the draft space, thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You know what everyone should do? Work really hard on this article to get it to FA status, and make it April Fools Day's featured article. Greasemann (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)Greasemann[reply]

Strange comments from a "new" editor. You're not helping things. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your comments about "working in the draft space" Another Believer. The draft space is for working on articles that will eventually be published in the article space, but aren't ready yet. It is highly doubtful that this page will ever be notable enough to be an article, so as suggested above, I'd recommend you to not use your time on this. There's a lot more to contribute to :) --SuperJew (talk) 08:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperJew: That's exactly why I'm working in the draft space: Draft:Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo. I appreciate the recommendation, but I'm comfortable working on articles about public art and won't let an AfD stop me from improving the encyclopedia. You're "highly doubtful", but I'm optimistic! (Also, this wouldn't be the first time I've expanded an article following a merge/delete vote, or even the first Good article I've promoted afterwards.) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge I think it's better to make a section on Cristiano Ronaldo's main article as it will fit much better. The statue and bust don't need an article, maybe just a section. Matthewishere0 (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - does not merit a separate article. GiantSnowman 07:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - I think the above merge votes have illustrated it well enough, while the coverage of the Cristiano Ronaldo bust has gotten a lot of attention, the information is probably best served within the article of the airport itself. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We are in desprate need of articles on public art outside of Britain and the United States, there is ample coverage of this sculpture, and the article is well referenced and written. The article highlighted how sparse our coverage of Portuguese art is as I have just had to create the primary Portuguese public art subcategories as a result. No Swan So Fine (talk) 12:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @No Swan So Fine: Thanks, and don't worry, there's a draft at Draft:Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo if you'd like to read the longer version of the article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, no evidence of independent notability. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Received significant media coverage. Hurrygane (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTNEWS though. Number 57 16:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:GNG though. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." See also: Draft:Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is awkward because folks are reviewing and voting on an incomplete live article, when there is a much more complete draft already in the works. If the result of this discussion is merge/delete, then I'm just going to be chastised when I move the draft into the main space for not complying with the results of this discussion. This is exactly what happened with the Not My Presidents Day article, which was nominated for deletion way too soon and resulted in a merge/delete vote. Then, the article was expanded and moved into the main space, resulting in accusations of ignoring the results of the discussion. But now the article is almost done being promoted to Good article status. Why are we discussing the deletion of an incomplete article, and what is going to happen when the more complete draft is moved into the main space? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not awkward. If this results in the article being deleted or merged, you should go to WP:DRV to try and get it overturned, not reinstate the article. Number 57 18:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, that didn't really work well for the Not My Presidents Day article, either, but thanks for the procedural suggestion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.