Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trunk Space
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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 keep. PT (s-s-s-s) 00:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Trunk Space
Creater removed prod as s/he feels that notabily was established on Talk page. References are two MySpace sites and offical site that crashed my browser. Appears to fail WP:N but you all decide. Mattisse 19:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - bad faith nomination - article was created with AfDs in mind, notability established on talk page as to avoid this very process. I will repeat reasons here. 630 unique Google hits for "trunk space" phoenix, 506 unique Google hits for "trunk space" music, and 722 unique Google hits for "trunk space" art. Notable venue in major American city and its music and art scene. Coverage in multiple, non-trivial publications and televison shows. See also 924 Gilman Street, ABC No Rio, Che Cafe, The Casbah, The Smell, etc., and the corresponding AfD discussions for Che Cafe and The Smell. It does not fail WP:N or WP:V - the article was written with those in mind! PT (s-s-s-s) 19:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Counting google hits is a very different thing than looking at the actual results. Seems a lot of people in Phoenix are selling cars with plenty of trunk space. Or they're looking for a ride share and have or need trunk space. Paging through the results finds a huge number of irrelevant entries. Fan-1967 20:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's why I used qualifiers like "art" and "music" in the search. I've done this before, Fan-1967. PT (s-s-s-s) 20:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- You mean like "Limited trunk space, ie: 2 bags per person. Open to music selection"? (That is actually the top item, result #501, that shows on your second search.) Fan-1967 20:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Why don't you go count how many pertain to the venue then? Is there lack of evidence that this place exists, that the shows and events and corresponding coverage are hoaxes? I didn't enter this with my head in the sand, and neither should any other editor. PT (s-s-s-s) 20:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- No one ever claimed it was a hoax. A lot of the hits do not relate to this plae at all, and the ones that do seem to be simply listings ("appearing 8:00 Thursday the 5th at Trunk Space"). Where are the "non-trivial" references? Fan-1967 20:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- azcentral.com, which is the website for the Arizona Republic. Phoenix New Times and they're corresponding site, phoenixnewtimes.com. And, the KTVK TV appearence. PT (s-s-s-s) 20:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Currently the article just says the venue has been featured in the Phoenix New Times, the Arizona Republic, and on Good Morning Arizona on KTVK.. I think Fan-1967 is actually looking for the sources for these to be included in the article to verify said claims. DrunkenSmurf 21:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- azcentral.com, which is the website for the Arizona Republic. Phoenix New Times and they're corresponding site, phoenixnewtimes.com. And, the KTVK TV appearence. PT (s-s-s-s) 20:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- No one ever claimed it was a hoax. A lot of the hits do not relate to this plae at all, and the ones that do seem to be simply listings ("appearing 8:00 Thursday the 5th at Trunk Space"). Where are the "non-trivial" references? Fan-1967 20:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Why don't you go count how many pertain to the venue then? Is there lack of evidence that this place exists, that the shows and events and corresponding coverage are hoaxes? I didn't enter this with my head in the sand, and neither should any other editor. PT (s-s-s-s) 20:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- You mean like "Limited trunk space, ie: 2 bags per person. Open to music selection"? (That is actually the top item, result #501, that shows on your second search.) Fan-1967 20:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's why I used qualifiers like "art" and "music" in the search. I've done this before, Fan-1967. PT (s-s-s-s) 20:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:V andcomment almost certainly fails WP:SPAM and seems like it may get past WP:CORP by the skin of its teeth. Remains problematic, but I'm not sure what ought to be done. WilyD 20:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)- comment (per new edit) - "What ought to be done"? If you have issue with the article, help make it better!PT (s-s-s-s) 21:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm thinking it over. I have recinded my "vote" in this discussion, so it's not a big deal that there's something that I don't like about the article, even if I'm having difficulty putting my finger on it. WilyD 21:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for your civility. I'm sorry you don't "like" something about the article, but it's factual, presented neutrally (no "best place in Phoenix!" statements), and with references. Sorry about the confusion before, when I typed the code out wrong, and the references weren't visible. PT (s-s-s-s) 22:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm thinking it over. I have recinded my "vote" in this discussion, so it's not a big deal that there's something that I don't like about the article, even if I'm having difficulty putting my finger on it. WilyD 21:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have already established how it passed WP:V. Tell me how it fails WP:SPAM. It's written in a neutral point of view, it only reports facts already established in reliable sources. Does every article about an establishment or venue fail WP:SPAM? PT (s-s-s-s) 21:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- The article contains no verifiable sources thus it fails WP:V. NPOV doesn't really relate to SPAM, although they can go hand in hand. Articles with NPOV can be SPAM, and articles with NPOV may not be SPAM. The defining characteristic of SPAM is that Wikipedia is being used to promote something, rather than document something. Lots of establishments and venues pass WP:SPAM because they're worthy of an encyclopaedia article, which this is not. WilyD 21:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- First off, you are assuming bad faith by accusing me of writing the article to promote something. I wrote it because it belongs, just as the other articles about venues belong. I wrote it to document the space, which is a notable contribution to the town (see everything I wrote above). Second, it has been verified. I can add more and more links to stories about the space, and in a few days, I might even be able to post a link to the video from the KTVK appearence. With all that said, what do you really have left to delete this for? PT (s-s-s-s) 21:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- This remains untrue. I've assumed nothing about you - I judged the article on it's own merits, and made some inferences from what was presented. As the article has no references, it fails WP:V and shows numerous characteristics of being spam, which I cautioned I was not certain of. But that's a usual inference from the fact that it appears to fail WP:CORP. To be perfectly frank, the ad hominem attacks here only further convince me that it's spam. WilyD 21:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have not attacked you personally in any way, shape, or form. I see where the problem was with the references, it was a code error that has since been corrected. PT (s-s-s-s) 21:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- You have, in fact, accused me of assuming bad faith and accused the nominator of making a bad faith nomination. Both of these are ad hominem attacks because they're arguments based upon the person making the argument, rather than the central issue of this discussion, whether some random art house is deserving of an article. WilyD 21:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Today isn't my first day on Wikipedia, I have created articles, made edits, written essays, participated in AfDs... I'm not here to "spam". Citing someone for bad faith is not in of itself acting in bad faith. The creation of the article, the notability, references, etc. included, was to show that it's not a "random art house." Did you read the article yet?. PT (s-s-s-s) 21:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- I never claimed you acted in bad faith, I claimed you made ad hominem arguments, which you did. I never said word one about you, so it's fairly hard to decode what (if any) assumptions I made about you. WilyD 21:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Today isn't my first day on Wikipedia, I have created articles, made edits, written essays, participated in AfDs... I'm not here to "spam". Citing someone for bad faith is not in of itself acting in bad faith. The creation of the article, the notability, references, etc. included, was to show that it's not a "random art house." Did you read the article yet?. PT (s-s-s-s) 21:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- You have, in fact, accused me of assuming bad faith and accused the nominator of making a bad faith nomination. Both of these are ad hominem attacks because they're arguments based upon the person making the argument, rather than the central issue of this discussion, whether some random art house is deserving of an article. WilyD 21:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have not attacked you personally in any way, shape, or form. I see where the problem was with the references, it was a code error that has since been corrected. PT (s-s-s-s) 21:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- This remains untrue. I've assumed nothing about you - I judged the article on it's own merits, and made some inferences from what was presented. As the article has no references, it fails WP:V and shows numerous characteristics of being spam, which I cautioned I was not certain of. But that's a usual inference from the fact that it appears to fail WP:CORP. To be perfectly frank, the ad hominem attacks here only further convince me that it's spam. WilyD 21:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- First off, you are assuming bad faith by accusing me of writing the article to promote something. I wrote it because it belongs, just as the other articles about venues belong. I wrote it to document the space, which is a notable contribution to the town (see everything I wrote above). Second, it has been verified. I can add more and more links to stories about the space, and in a few days, I might even be able to post a link to the video from the KTVK appearence. With all that said, what do you really have left to delete this for? PT (s-s-s-s) 21:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- The article contains no verifiable sources thus it fails WP:V. NPOV doesn't really relate to SPAM, although they can go hand in hand. Articles with NPOV can be SPAM, and articles with NPOV may not be SPAM. The defining characteristic of SPAM is that Wikipedia is being used to promote something, rather than document something. Lots of establishments and venues pass WP:SPAM because they're worthy of an encyclopaedia article, which this is not. WilyD 21:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- comment (per new edit) - "What ought to be done"? If you have issue with the article, help make it better!PT (s-s-s-s) 21:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - If you look at List of U.S. concert venues at Trunk Space and Modified Arts nomimated below and the lists of other sites tacked on to this and the other articles, you begin to see the web of interconnecting sites that is being constructed. Just from Wikipedia and mirror sites there would be an exponentially growing list of Google hits. Somewhere in those lists, if you look, it starts to go international - lists of venues in London, etc. - all interwoven to connecting sites. I live in an area where some famous band/group/singer plays almost weekly at one of the many music venues nearby and my state is not even on the List of U.S. concert venues. I find that odd. Mattisse 22:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Response - I provided those Google stats on a talk page BEFORE the article was posted, so they don't include Wikipedia or mirror sites that would pick up on the creation of the article. You can even add -wikipedia to the search, the results remain the same. You are assuming bad faith in my intentions here and outright ignoring the ways in which I asserted notability, cited references, and planned for a trigger-happy AfD. PT (s-s-s-s) 22:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete for a lack of solid verifiability/notability. BigHaz 23:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- What more do you need than what's already in there? Perhaps it can be found and placed within the article. Specify what's wrong with the sources already in there. Do you know much about Phoenix New Times or Arizona Republic? Are the television appearences not good enough for you? Did you look at the talk pages or the other precedents for The Smell and Che Cafe? PT (s-s-s-s) 23:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- I'm basing my vote on the solid research done by other users in this discussion already, which demonstrates that a great many of the tests for notability are failed hands down and that the appearances of this venue in the media you cite are minor references at best. Those arguments seem convincing enough to me. BigHaz 00:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- "Solid research"? Explain. You're basing your vote on the other votes in the AfD and haven't actually read the article? PT (s-s-s-s) 01:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- "Solid research" being the long and drawn out discussion above to do with the myriad of Google sources not in fact being Google sources about the venue so much as they are requests for carpooling and such or vague mentions that so-and-so is going to be performing there. I have also read the article and don't necessarily believe that a venue like this is inherently notable. BigHaz 03:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- "Solid research"? Explain. You're basing your vote on the other votes in the AfD and haven't actually read the article? PT (s-s-s-s) 01:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm basing my vote on the solid research done by other users in this discussion already, which demonstrates that a great many of the tests for notability are failed hands down and that the appearances of this venue in the media you cite are minor references at best. Those arguments seem convincing enough to me. BigHaz 00:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Article needs verified sources. Current lack of them does not mean article should be deleted. Kellen T 03:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep venue has won a "Best of Phoenix" award[1] from the Phoenix New Times, seems fairly notable. -MrFizyx 06:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- I would hope that the linked review/award might address some of the WP:V concerns discussed above. I'll leave it to PT to add this new info to the article, I was lucky to run across this while researching the Rhythm Room. -MrFizyx 07:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Needs more sources, yes, but as Kellen says, that doesn't mean it should be deleted. 20,000+ ghits for "trunk space" phoenix suggests it's notable enough, as do the write ups in the local papers--but again, some links to such articles and whatnot would be nice. --heah 19:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and Revise. This needs sources and to be edited so it reads less like an advertisement. (Clamster5 19:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC))
- Keep - If places like the Smell in LA are included in Wikipedia than i feel it is only fair that you keep The Trunk Space. 4.240.251.167 03:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Passes notability. Needs some serious work, though. Wyatt Riot 14:09, 29 July 2006 (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.
