Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nottingham Cooperative

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. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 05:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nottingham Cooperative

Nottingham Cooperative (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Another housing co-op. Less clear-cut than the others, may have sufficient notabilty based on connection to Frank Lloyd Wright or as a music venue. I'm leaning toward not notable but would hardly cry bitter tears if others disagree. Otto4711 21:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. There is no connection to Frank Lloyd Wright, only a connection to an acolyte of his, who doesn't (yet) have his own Wikipedia article. There is no landmark designation for the structure. Non-notable. --Dhartung | Talk 22:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There are many reasons why someone would be interested in reading up on Nottingham Co-op on wikipedia. not only are affordable independent housing co-ops which are open to people of all occupations a dying breed, but this one in particular is a unique music venue in that it takes no money and is also a residence, and yet has managed to stage a fair few quite notable bands (many with wikipedia pages, as is demonstrated on the page) . nottingham has been featured on the front page of a local weekly just for that reason. it has had a particular influence on the culture of madison and on the co-op movement. nottingham is at least as influential as many things that do not get targeted for deletion, such as shopping malls, local sports teams and the madison museum of bathroom tissue. Acornwithwings 20:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• As I said in nominating it, I don't have strong feelings about it one way or the other. But please, don't resort to "it's as good as X" as an argument for keeping. Each article stands or falls on its own merits and the existence of one article has no bearing on whether another article should exist. Otto4711 03:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, the last sentence is frivolous. However, the rest of my argument stands (albeit poorly worded).144.92.184.50 21:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

(Just to avoid confusion, the IP address was me). Acornwithwings 00:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

keep but it probable should be retitled to indicate that its notability was as a venue. DGG 07:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep if for no other reason than that it's history as a independent and non-for-profit music (as well as other events) venue. What sets this particular house apart is its hosting of well-known (infamous to actually famous) bands (such as Husker Du, Bikini Kill and Eugene Chadbourne) over the years, and not for monetary interests, as 99% of other venues they'd play would. This, I think, is a notable rarity: a community of people hosting truly independent shows just for the sake of having them, just because they can. --Molybdenumtop 15:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep

The notability of Nottingham as a venue has implications that may not be obvious at first--as an intentional link between Minneapolis and Chicago, making it worth the while of smaller touring bands to make the crossing. Has it succeeded in doing so in a way that could be readily documented--perhaps not in a way that could be immediately documented--but I suppose if proof had to be built it could be--the idea itself, though is intuitively obvious 0once the question is asked. Yet I think that Nottingham is notable for reasons beyond this--looking at the general or theoretical pages about Co-operatives get the reader only so far--there need to be real and individual examples, not only of co-ops which have made it but even some of the notable failures. Look at this question from the viewpoint of someone who doesn’t know much who wants to know more--it seems to me that Nottingham’s' site, for example, and the other sites under consideration for deletion, greatly fill out what the less-knowledgeable reader can know. It seems to me that this especially fits into Wikipedia's mission, that it evolves, that pages can be added that fit the examples of the living world--what is the real difference between Wikipedia and a paper encyclopedia if it has to wait for things to be come very popularly known or very thoroughly covered by historians (often long after the subject has passed on from the world?) Could someone come to Wikipedia, get interested in the theory, and then log off and Google-up many of these eco-operatives and learn that way?--sure. That now means that a generic google has become more informative on this particular topic than Wikipedia. As many co-op websites have sections of co-op theory (and many more will) Wikipedia, not the Co-ops themselves stands to lose notability--that is to say relevance--on this topic. Yet because Wikipedia does have a certain format (I honestly have enough doubts right now to be sure if it has viable standards) it can shape the information in a way useful to the researcher--and should I say in a way useful to the discoverer? It would e a pity if Co-ops had to provide their own Google-notability absent from Wikipedia. Indeed, this is why I often have questions about what has been deleted or edited-out in other areas--part of the point of an encyclopedia is to allow less--known things to be found--and part of the reason for a hyperlink encyclopedia is to allow this to happen because unexpected connections are noted and their follow-through made convenient. The co-op web-pages are just starting out in that regard, I think. One day (if they are not deleted) the role of housing co-ops as rather early LGBT-embracing (or at least safe) spaces, will be added, with links to personal pages in that regard, as at least some Alumni become notable (or noted, I should say) in their own right. Finally, one reason why individual co-ops might not seem relevant is that right now, not very many people actually live in co-ops, a greater number shop at them, and a number of people who don't suspect it buy from the large ones (like Ocean Spray) all the time--there's one of the connections that might be explored by a discoverer BTW--does the fact that co-oping is a smaller movement meant that it is not notable as a whole? I hope not--I hope that people might be able to not only discover, but get involved--and again, having Wikipedia pages about the history etc. of real live, local and particular examples show the point. I am, in summary, confident that the links and the content, the broader signs of an existent notability, will show themselves in time--it seems like it would be a waste to have to do the work of the sites themselves from scratch only after a slam-dunk case had already been established. Clown in black and yellow 15:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC) (UTC)

• Keep Nottingham stands out from the general cooperative movement in Madison WI because of 1) It's independence from Madison's Cooperative Council and 2) It's role as a music venue. It is really a legitimately interesting bit of Madison's history. MeganH 19:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:Notability is not established. The question is not whether the subject is popular or unpopular, important or unimportant, but whether a proper encyclopedia article can be written on the subject; doing so requires multiple, independent, reliable sources.-- Chondrite 09:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I have just now referenced much of the Events section. more can be done. Acornwithwings 05:11, 16 December 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.