Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/123 Pleasant Street (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Delete. Avi 06:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 123 Pleasant Street (2nd nomination)

123 Pleasant Street (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Procedural nomination, previous discussions here and here. No vote. — CharlotteWebb 06:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per my original nom. MER-C 08:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
(Might be useful to spell that out for those of us who missed it.) I think the question here is: can we verify this from any independent sources. I can't seem to, so tending towards delete, but I'll watch and see if anyone else can first.--Docg 10:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm searching, and I've added a couple more external links. I could use a little assistance, though. Please. -DarkAudit 14:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete sources appear to be primarily about the proprietor, not the club. Guy (Help!) 20:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment not any more. I've added a few about the club this morning. DarkAudit 22:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I contacted the local college radio station that sponsors a lot of performances at the club. hopefully they can get word out to help fix the article. DarkAudit 00:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete Again, none of the links provided meet WP:RS or WP:V. We have personal websites, blogs, and news articles primarily about the owner, not the club. On the new links:

1)Jambase simply is a listing of the club.

2) Graphiti is an opinion article that is written in a 'state-wide' printed magazine with a monthly run of 30,000 copies. I'm not sure about it. It could be concidered a vanity mag and not meeting WP:RS. I'm not sure it's a Reliable, reputable sources.

3) Morgantown and West Virginia Music Sites is a private website with personal opinions without editorial review. It is not a Reliable Source.

4) Greater Morgantown Arts & Culture is a community/city website run by the visitor's bureau. The page in question simply lists points of interest in the community and is not concidered a Reliable source. Also the article is not primarily about the club...a trivial source if concidered a source at all.

On the Old Links:

1) We have a link to the club's personal website. Definately not a Reliable source

2) The broken link was removed however a missing person's page on a private website is not a reliable or valid source (nor has it and relivence in sourcing the club).

3) The Doe Network missing person's page did have a listing for the missing owner but the page said nothing about the club. The link, at 7:19pm CST on Jan 10th, is not working.

4) The local news story was primarily about the owner and in fact did NOT mention the club at all, except to say she went missing at 123 Pleasant Street (which to the normal person not from the area, would assume that was just an address, not a club).

5) The last link is a personal blog from a band. Per WP:RS, blogs are not concidered valid sources, especially those without editorial review.

On very very very weak source from a questionable publication? Still believe in deleting this article --Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 01:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

    • Comment At least I'm making an effort to save the page at all. Instead of paragraph after paragraph on why the article needs to go, why not put that effort into helping save the thing? Considering WV's population, Grafitti's 30K circulation is understandable. The paper is just like any other indie paper in larger cities that cover the music and arts scene. But in this case it covers the entire state. DarkAudit 03:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The Daily Atheneaum, the WVU newspaper is a reliable, verifiable source. But without archives online. The Dominion Post charges just to read anything from their web site. I do not have the time to go scour the microfilm archives at the WVU library. The campus radio station is on the case. Give them a chance to help out. DarkAudit 03:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • DarkAudit, the burden of proof for this is not on me but on those that wish to keep the article. I do no see any value in it nor do I see anything that meets WP:RS in my google searches. It's not on me, someone voicing an opinion here in AFD, to add anything to the article, and as a wikipedia editor you know this. You also are aware, or should be aware, of the main wikipedia policies and the many guidelines, and hence you should have known that the sources provided are not acceptable per WP:V, which is explained more in WP:RS. A reasonable person who is not from that area can not easily find information readily available about this place of business. As you are asking a radio station to help, this indicates to me that even someone interested in this club is having a difficult time finding reliable sources. Now this afd runs for another 4 days. That should be enough time to find a chapter in a book, a national/international newspaper or magazine that has a feature length article primarily about the club, or a national news network that has carried a story primarily about the club (not the owner). Please remember that a place of business could have dozens of articles in local newspapers, but that does not mean it is notable. What makes this club any more notable than any other indi club in the US or even the World? We need sources that pass wikipedia's WP:V/WP:RS policy. So far, none provided do. This isn't personal, so please do not feel this is an attack against you, the club, the owner, or the city. I'm not saying that the club isn't important to those that enjoy going to it, nor am I saying it isn't a part of the community's history. What I am saying is nothing about this club makes it notable (there is a local club that has hosted even bigger named acts than this club yet it is not notable either) --Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 10:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per user Bschott's reasons. SetofFive 15:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, sounds a great place, but unfortunately it appears that is is not notable in any form. Nuttah68 15:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Notability isn't the issue here. The article was kept on those grounds the first time. The sources are what's being challenged now. Please base your decision on that, not notability. DarkAudit 20:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment - if the article has already been kept as notable, according to your argument above, then an AFD would not appear to be the proper way to handle a problem with soruces. The sources could be cleaned up. perhaps a maintenance tag would be appropriate. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Brian's exhaustive rationale. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep sourced sufficient to survive AfD, editor committed to improvement, notiality established by role in regional music scene. If a music venue has "dozen of articles"(not adds) in local press it is notable. Period. You are setting bar too high. Mystery about owner just some more "icing"Edivorce 21:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:LOCAL is the correct standard here Graphiti link alone should suffice.Edivorce 22:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - appears notable enough to me. ALso just recently went through AFD and result was keep. Looks like editor has done some cleanup, but still has a little more to do. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment After consulting with the Admin posting this nomination I sent notices to all Users contributing to the prior AfD on this article. I do not believe that this is sufficient, however, to remedy the situation. I request that the comments of all editors from the previous AfD be considered as part of the record of this AfD. To do otherwise would be profoundly unfair. Notice to the Users is not adequate because: 1)the tight time constraint imposed by the AfD, and 2)The chilling effect on expression which is caused by upsetting the first Consensus. It would amount to blatant "do over." Please consider this a formal request to incorporate these commentsEdivorce 19:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This current re-do AfD is the product of a flawed WP:Deletion Review. The initiator of the DR and the sole User responding in the DR misapplied the process and did not seem to understand the nature of "Consensus." The Consensus is a process that requires gaining the acceptance and agreement of the parties participating in a discussion. Although Consensus need not bring on board every participant, it is not a question of "having the better argument." You have to convince others. If you fail to do this your arguments may be "superior" in your own mind but they did not prevail. A process in which a User replaces the views of the participants with her own is not Consensus. It is at best arbitration. At worst it is whim. The Admin closing the original AfD was correct in finding a Consensus of "Keep."Edivorce 19:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Questions Why was the Deletion Review closed after only one day and not the five days required by WP:Deletion Review? Who was the Admin who closed the the DR? Edivorce 01:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and Tag I agree that this article does not contain many independent sources, but what it does have seems sufficient enough for an article that is notable under WP:LOCAL. I believe an appropriate course of action would be to keep the article and tag it with {{local}} until additional independent sources are added. Nick—Contact/Contribs 02:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Brian's very extensive survey suffices to convince me that my original comments, and impression of this page, were incorrect. --Haemo 03:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - This looks to satisfy WP:LOCAL. It's a major venue in Morgantown. Could use more sources but it is all still verifiable. --Oakshade 07:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per the WP:LOCAL that some people seem to be using as a keep (not sure how)? WP:LOCAL specifically states that local subjects without enough reliable source material for a comprehensive article should be merged into the parent locality, if appropriate, or deleted. What's "enough"? The big overarching guideline is found at WP:N-multiple, nontrivial, and reliable sources exist on the subject. Only one source of questionable reliability (and questionable triviality, local rag) has been found, so regardless, notability is not satisfied. Seraphimblade 18:55, 17 January 2007 (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.