Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hartslane (2nd nomination)

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. bd2412 T 04:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Hartslane

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Hartslane
• Articles for deletion/Hartslane (2nd nomination)

Hartslane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An advertorially-toned page on an unremarkable Artist-run space. Significant RS coverage not found. Article is cited to passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP sources. The article has been previously deleted and then recreated by the same contributor. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• Weak keep, partly on the basis that this nomination is fundamentally flawed. The article clearly isn't "advertorially toned" (unless you count its mere existence as being advertorial) and significant reliable coverage has been found and is used already to support the article. Admittedly I couldn't find a tremendous amount of online coverage, but if they've been written about in news sources as far away as Yorkshire it suggests they were more than just a localised phenomenum. Sionk (talk) 06:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• The item cited from the Telegraph & Argus is worded in the classic local paper style. Its authorship is unclear, but it can also be seen re-published more widely. Rather than indicative of widespread interest in Lewisham activity, however, it is more likely symptomatic of the consolidations and de-editorialisation of the local press in recent years, with re-publication of syndicated copy replacing local journalism. AllyD (talk) 08:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• • From the article, cited to a blog: "It is an excellent example of a group of enterprising creatives working with the local authority to revitalise a building which had formerly been left vacant for many years."

References

This sounds "advertorial" to me. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• Keep the article has been edited since the nomaintion; I do not see much advertorial writing going on. Based on existing refs, it appears to have some weak notability.198.58.171.47 (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Beatrice Catanzaro

Here's another article by the same editor that acutally does deserve to be deleted: Beatrice Catanzaro.198.58.171.47 (talk) 23:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)— Example (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete no indication of notability. A few mentions in very local papers, as K.e. writes. I'm not seeing it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. below the borderline for notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 11:01 1 December 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Promotional article about an art space fueled by local niche sources, and exhibition section is not notable in the slightest. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 22:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The exhibition section notability does not matter... per basics, material in the article does not have to be notable, just he subject.2607:FEA8:D140:8D0:C4F0:CEC9:B20E:82FC (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2017 (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.