Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valencia Tool & Die

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 no consensus. — Aitias // discussion 01:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valencia Tool & Die[edit]

Delete Unremarkable 3-year-run currently shutdown clud; prod was removed by creator -Zeus-^u_c 15:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Curious as to why Zeus finds entry on Valencia Tool & Die "unremarkable" any more than say a hot dog stand in Sydney Australia which I found on Wikipedia, or the Deaf Club which operated down the street from Tool & Die which is on Wikipedia? There is really not much to go on here except Zeus opinion, however, Zeus doesn't present any information about himself that would make him an expert on the subject. Was Zeus there? I have authored three books on Punk and underground artists and I was there, so again what makes this entry any more or less valuable than the entry for the Deaf Club or Punk Rock in California (which had a red link for Valencia Tool & Die prior to my writing the link). Do you want only general information on the subject or specific first person information? Belsipe (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC) belsipe[reply]

Comment. While I currently have no opinion on the deletion, I'd like to remind Belsipe that in this conversation I suggested he read WP:Notability and discussed some of the WP:COI issues he would have citing his own books as references for the club he managed. I suggest again that WP:Notability might answer some of your questions, as well as WP:OTHERSTUFF. HTH--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just as notable as a hot dog stand in Sydney. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what ChildofMidnight's comment is supposed to mean, but frankly I have to say that much of the comments I have read by Wikipedia's "editors" has been sniping and snarky in appearance. Perhaps I don't understand the culture and lingo, but the editors appear to be hiding behind some kind of Oz curtain. Your policy statements ask contributors not to take it your comments personally, however some of the comments seem to be intentionally rude. As far as the VT&D entry goes, you've worn me out. I wanted to make a contribution to Wikipedia and I'm happy to work with editors who aren't predisposed to denigrate what they don't really know about. What I was adding to the Punk in SF section were first person accounts. It seems you would prefer that someone who was not there reconstruct it instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belsipe (talk • contribs) 23:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want help you should ask for it. Instead you come and criticize people who know the rules and understand the process. We DO NOT want first hand accounts. That is opinion. Content and articles need to be based on reliable third party sources that are independent of a subject. You're welcome to read wp:notability and wp:coi (about conflicts of interest) for more information. I find it amusing that you think other people are snarky. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some Hot Dog stands ARE notable. but...I digress. As to the Valencia Club. From reading the article one can sense the importance of the club within a certain circle. But that is how clubs are. They are famous for a brief moment, a year or two...three if they are lucky...and then the clients go elsewhere. But they have their day in the sun and become a part of the day to day history of a great American City. IMO that intitles the Valencia Tool & Die article to be a KEEP. Its really no different than a popular local TV show...Bozo's Circus, lets say!--Buster7 (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nomination may well be right, but I can't tell whether the coverage in the footnotes is significant independent coverage. If these are articles about the club, and the book has more than a few sentences, there may be notability, just not the recent notability that's readily available through Google. But by the same token, if the secondary sources barely mention the club in passing, I'd agree not notable. I simply don't have enough information. I'm concerned about the WP:BITE issue: editors filled up this guy's talk page with templates without ever welcoming him. It's not like he's vandalizing the encyclopedia. THF (talk) 04:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed...he was afforded a very rude welcoming which is not uncommon for newbie article creators. We tell them to be bold and then chastise them for mis-behaving.--Buster7 (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes we (Wikipedians) show more concern and respect for outright vandals than we do for newbies. --Buster7 (talk) 12:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sounds like a fun place, seems quite notable from an art history viewpoint. And maybe San Francisco punk needs a category.... Regular hardcore thrash (genre) shows in 1981 are ahead of their time, avant garde, notable. --Mr Accountable (talk) 06:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and allow the continued work of WP:Cleanup begun by User:THF that will result in a nicely encyclopodic and sourced article with NPOV and proper sourcing. There does seem to be enough WP:RS to WP:Verify its shortlived WP:Notability... and notability is not temporary. I will grant that it will need a major sandblasting, but it's do-able and there is no WP:DEADLINE to get it done (despite the arbitrary one set by an AfD). I understand and sympathyze with the author's angst, as his account has only been editing Wiki for one week and hardly has had time to learn the many ins and outs of Wiki expectations. And as User:ChildofMidnight points out, he would have been better served by asking for help.. which he is geting anyway. The article was prodded for deletion only 5 days after its creation AND the process of improving the article IS underway. Let the darn thing stay and be improved to meet all concerns. Deletion diminishes wiki. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:51, 12 February 2009 (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.