RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Draft:Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva

Draft:Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva | Result: Keep, but needs improvement before being moved out of draftspace

Draft:Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. This draft has been rejected from mainspace several times due to being a poorly written hitpiece, and while several editors have tried to improve it User:Dropix has just been adding the problematic content back in again. This is clearly just going in circles at this point, and I feel like it would be better to just nuke it and start over again. Plutocow (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Keep

1. It's just a draft, and many of our articles are hit pieces. Don't like it? Edit it. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 11:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
2. Doesn't seem terrible. Add mentions of more positive things and it'll be more balanced. But I think the use of the few controversial Lula quotes suck, because they say so little and it is their ambiguity and gaffe-value that is the whole thing; they could be moved to a gaffe section or cut, but more can't be made out of them. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
3. Not only keep it, but promote to mainspace where it belongs. The subject is a top important world leader who is involved in many controversies. Contrarily to what was claimed, the article is well written, covers the important events of the subject's biography beginning with his early life, and the few flaws it might have can be fixed with a little editing and sourcing. There is also a lot of room for expanding. If it sounding like a 'hit piece' is a reason for deletion, we should also delete many similar articles, starting with 'Jair Bolsonaro', which is much more aggressive towards the subject (if my personal political opinion matters, I loathe both guys). But is that even a problem, considering that RationalWiki does not follow a neutral point of view but a 'snarky' one? - Dropix (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

   At least the Bolsonaro article doesn't rely on out-of-context quotes and vague assertions. Your edits have been the ones that have held back the article the most. Plutocow (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

4. Can't really begin to tell you how much I dislike the idea of "nuke it and start over again"... And after reading through all of it, I really don't feel it even reads as a hitpiece. The only possible issue I can see is the sentence "Several controversies define Lula's second presidency.". It probably isn't true. I don't think those things currently or will define his presidency. Other than that, I feel it's just a decent article? (っ◔◡◔)っ ♥ Natsuki Marx ♥ (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
5. Needs work, but that’s fine for a draft. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
6. Why erase drafts? Seriously, what is it with you and constantly dragging pages to AfD that you don't like? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)