Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tower Theatre (Sacramento, California)

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. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tower Theatre (Sacramento, California)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Might be notable, but the entire article is copied from [1]. Fuddle (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:G12 as unambiguous copyright infringement. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment Rather than rush to delete a copy vio, since Wiki is meant to be a collaborative effort, why not start the article over based on the information provided? I blanked the text, found a different source so it now has at least one reference. I found a site that gives you a brief history of the theater. I challenge you to improve the article and not pursue deletion. Postcard Cathy (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article's problems as described above are surmountable since deletion is not cleanup.Djflem (talk) 07:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, if, as the article states, the theater is a national historic landmark then this would be a slam "keep" as meeting WP:NGEO but it doesn't appear in the wikiarticle List of National Historic Landmarks in California, nor appears on the National Park Service "List of NHLs by State", nevertheless, it is on the Sacremento Register of Historic & Cultural Resources (see here). Coolabahapple (talk) 13:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I was the one that put in the landmark designation but as I usually don’t edit articles about buildings, I didn’t know about the articles you mentioned. Can you please make any and all edits to other articles you think are important? Postcard Cathy (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have opened discussion Talk:Tower Theatre (Sacramento, California)#Landmark status? to clarify and tagged as dubious.Djflem (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG, and it seeps the copyright problems have been addressed. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It would be very hard for a Streamline Moderne building not to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly notable thanks to the improvements by Postcard Cathy and Djflem. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Thanks everyone for contributing to improving this article! I created it because I believe it is significant and meets GNG, I just did not have the time to produce original content. — MHansen (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:MHansen -- does your casual comment mean there are other copyright violations in your editing history? Wikipedia is compelled to take that seriously. You should too. Have a look at Wikipedia:Copyright violations. If you didn't have time to "produce original content", please don't create time-consuming messes for others to solve. If you've done this before, clean up after yourself. In good faith and good humor --Lockley (talk) 04:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: It is significant historically and clearly notable. I have seen many less significant theatres having their own Wikipedia article. So this one shall be kept. It just needs some fixing. And as per the guidelines by wikipedia that the nominator should read before nominating any article, articles that can be fixed shall be kept. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 09:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's fairly clear consensus to keep now that the copyvio has been removed, but could the closing admin please RD1 up to 960940992, which is the revision before the infringing text was removed? Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.