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.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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."[1]
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 Catanzaroreply
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.
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.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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."[1]
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 Catanzaroreply
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.