Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiffany's, dancehall

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. Cirt (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany's, dancehall

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

Declined WP:PROD. Non-notable venue; sources consist largely of web pages listing concerts that happened in the venue, but none from reliable sources. Frank | talk 01:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well-ok. Let's go under the list. In article there are relevant references, but Frank so wishes to expose article on removal that prefers not to notice it.--Andrey! 07:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. Little Richard - Other reference is not present, but in article too there is no such material. Probably, the information is the truth as Little Richard was born Edinburgh.--Andrey! 07:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Deep Purple - Sending on page In Rock World Tour is given. If the nominator has worked to look at least What links here would see it. There dates of rounds do not prove to be true in any way. Thus Tiffanys it is specified. Also it is specified on a deeppurpleliveindex.com site (It it is used in that article as a source). Tell it a reliable source?--Andrey! 07:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Elton John Here, there is still such page. Tell it a reliable source?--Andrey! 07:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. John Otway Here, there is still [such poster. Tell it a reliable source?--Andrey! 07:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Wild Willy Barrett Here, there is still [such poster. Tell it a reliable source?--Andrey! 07:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources, unless "some big names played there" is sufficient for notability of a venue. If it should be kept, the horrible English needs a complete rewrite. Oh, and is the user above claiming that Little Richard was born in Scotland? That must be news to Little Richard...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Above I have resulted five questions under references. Answer each of them, please.--Andrey! 09:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources give significant coverage of this venue. One is just a photograph of a poster stuck to a wall -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is very unpleasant to me that you could not answer points 2 and 3. You do not have objections?--Andrey! 22:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I answered all your points. I said that none of the sources presented give significant coverage of this venue. That covers all five points (two of which are the same source, anyway) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you were hooked for Litte Richard and have not seen Dire Straits and Deep Purple! Perfectly!--Andrey! 09:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I don't understand -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  I understand that you do not manage to think up arguments against sources on Dire Straits and Deep Purple.--Andrey! 22:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did not understand what you were asking me to address. No offence intended, but your English is very hard to understand. I don't think there is anything to address related to those bands. The sources attached to their names, like all the others, do not give significant coverage of the venue itself. Nobody is denying that some big-name bands played gigs at the venue, but to have its own article, there need to be sources which give in-depth coverage of the venue itself, not simply mention its name on lists of gigs. Here, for example, is an article about a venue. It doesn't merely mention it in passing in an article about something else, it is actually about the venue. That's the sort of source we need here........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not have such article, but I can confirm the fact of passage of the main part of concerts in it venue.--Andrey! 21:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - As has been repeatedly pointed out in this AfD, nobody doubts that some well-known acts played at the venue, but that by itself does not make the venue notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      You try to overpersuade me, but I do not see arguments. They would be good, if the performance fact was individual, but here it not so. I have written to participants of project Venue but they yet do not write to this discuss.--Andrey! 07:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Notability is not inherited. Some notable performers may have performed at Tiffany's, but that doesn't make Tiffany's notable. (Also, the Elton John link above notes that the appearance at Tiffany's was canceled, which would be even less reason to confer notability.) None of the sources in the article that I saw would be considered a reliable source. They are fan sites, blogs, simple lists, and primary sources (photos of posters, for example). Even if they were reliable sources, they still don't add up to significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Finally, the fact that another page links to it doesn't make it notable; Wikipedia is not a source. Frank | talk 12:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to understand at first with sources. On five facts sources at numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 are above resulted.--Andrey! 22:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When we will manage to confirm with sources that here in a current of 15 years high quality musical collectives we will return to a question notability acted--Andrey! 22:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note WP:PROD here it is not applicable, as it is a question not of a single instance, and about more than hundred concerts--Andrey! 22:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as outlined above, no significant coverage of the venue in reliable sources. Notability is not conferred simply because major acts have appeared there. I found some items on the building in its earlier phases as a theatre [1] and cinema [2], but again not enough to demonstrate "significant coverage". Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @148 · 02:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to add in article of data about theatre and about cinema.--Andrey! 15:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears not to have had substantial coverage in reliable sources, and the article is TERRIBLE, in some cases so confused-sounding that it's difficult to make out what the author is attempting to say. If kept, would require a 100% word-by-word rewrite. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Above in discussion I tried to work this question (about reliable sources), but dialogue has turned to my monologue. You are ready to consider variants on each of them?--Andrey! 15:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not to overlook that this venue was a performance venue for many a notable act (see above), but the fact that Elton John, Deep Purple, and others performed there does not make a place notable. This doesn't give it a history. There are other things that make a place notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You write about all references as a whole. In article there is a few references to official sites of musicians. You challenge also their relevance including. Means it is impossible to give such reference which would satisfy you.--Andrey! 15:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited. --Joe Decker (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to reposting with better evidence on notability. There may well be coverage of this venue, but it all looks pre-internet, and the onus is on the poster to prove notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does not concern a theme: Here I created Disambiguation pages Rafter (disambiguation) and Rafter (name). I saw about hundred articles without a uniform source. And such articles do not cause tearing away in you.--Andrey! 15:47, 28 February 2010 (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.