Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University Square Theatres

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. This article does not establish notability. Though it has numerous articles from two independent papers, only one article is specifically about the Theatres. The rest are about University Square. In making this decision, I have not taken into account the PROD, nor have I taken into account the tone of the article, as these are all matters that can be rectified without deleting the article. I should note, however, that it's not a good idea to do this regardless of what article it is, as we need a neutral article that just deals with facts with an even tone. However, the deletion is for notability reasons. It would perhaps be more appropriate to have an article about University Square and detail the material about the cinema in this article. Ta bu shi da yu 12:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] University Square Theatres

University Square Theatres (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Prod provoking a 'go fuck yourself Wikipedia' (since removed) response-in-article along with a passionate statement from original author, which I interpret as meaning the prod is contested or controversial. Original Prod reason: Jokey article on theater subsequently demolished with complex in 2006. No apparent notability, importance, or significance persists. There remains little online documentation or indication for these claims. I grant local feelings appear to run high about the demolition, but still recommend Delete unless WP:RS of less personal notability et al is shown (hopefully without the jokes this time). Michael Devore 00:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable; no sources. Renee 00:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Note: Comment was moved here from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 September 23-Wafulz 00:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't seem to have made much of an impact- the only sources are from a community paper. We don't an article on every movie theatre that lasts less than six years.-Wafulz 00:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - the Wisconsin State Journal is a bit more than a "community paper." And the theatre was around for way longer than six years. It was operational when I moved to Madison in 1993. Otto4711 12:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. per above Bleh999 00:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Leaning towards Delete I'm a bit torn here. While those articles were originally published in the Wisconsin State Journal (or so it seems), they don't really specifically address the theatre, but rather the mall which housed it. faithless (speak) 01:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic. Non-notable cinema. Keb25 02:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - and rename/repurpose to an article about the mall. If the sources establish the notability of the mall, then the obvious answer is to make the article about the mall rather than just the theatre. Otto4711 12:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge In looking over the history, I'm not sure why it had been tagged with the baiting statement that it was a "Jokey article", nor why the nomination includes the note that a "G.F.Y." response was made. This could probably be merged into an article about the University of Wisconsin or Madison, Wisconsin. Every college campus, big or small, has as part of its heritage the off-campus gathering places that all the alumni remember. I agree that movie theaters are not inherently notable, so it would be better to merge into another article than for this to stand alone. Mandsford 15:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
No baiting, but an accurate statement. Jokes in an article do influence the perception of an article and cheapen its value. The jokes are clearly represented in statements such as: The city is justifiably concerned about mass protests and rioting on the date of demolition, but Misco has issued a plea for peace which he unequivocally states loyal 'Misconians' will follow. He also promises happy endings to all. Rioting, indeed. Or you might prefer The Theatre Cafe, an adjunctive theatre added during the summer of 2004, has stretched the bounds of what people expect from a theatre experience. Near as I can tell, it's a snack bar. That isn't all the joking, but enough.
It is further difficult to claim baiting when the article is so old that it there was no active editing for more than a year, the subject had been demolished also for more than a year, and the author was notified of the proposal.
As for GFY, it is a clear reflection of the controversy which negates the prod. Otherwise it's just a last-minute blast of good-bye cruel world by original author. There was no other objection or removal of prod, the contested is implied through GFY. If it is your wish to save the article, it's not a big deal to me, though I would prefer less artificial outrage. I like to see bad articles made good, as well. Michael Devore 18:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable in itself. No objection to an article about the mall, the redevelopment of which, at least, was a topic of discussion for a number of years. --Dhartung | Talk 18:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Rather than deleting what's here, why not move this to University Square Mall and use it as a basis for the new article? Otto4711 04:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Could work. Since the recent flurry of edit activity, a lot of what's here wasn't there on the initial prod. Versus the theater, the mall complex has a greater claim to notability, significance, and importance with on-point reliable sources. Your idea removes my objections if the NPOV content were incorporated in a more expansive University Square Mall article, with redirect. My own AfD concerns are with conspicuous failures of notability et al guidelines. A broader-based less-POV sourced article of current interest moves above that point for me. Others may demur. Michael Devore 05:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable, pretty sure the mall will be not notable too, but I await verifiable proof of notability there.--Buridan 05:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep the Wisconsin State Journal and the Capital Times are major regional newspapers for the city that is the state capital--as well as the site of the University. No problem with POV that editing cant fix. DGG (talk) 06:32, 24 September 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.