Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theta Beta Potata (second 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 22:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theta Beta Potata

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

This article was speedy deleted under CSD G4 as a repost from this AfD. A DRV consensus determined this speedy was in error; the article here is substantially rewritten and sourced. The matter is submitted to AfD for new consideration. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. Geoffrey Spear 15:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or alternatively merge with punk house. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as a potentially notable example of a punk house which is a subject, which, at this point, has no established criteria for notability. When a criteria is established for notability, then we can determine if this is a notable or non-notable article. However, in the meantime, lets KEEP the article and use it as a motivation to improve the punk house article, come to an agreement on the criteria for punk house notability, and overall build more interest and discussion concerning all punk rock related articles. The main venue for these discussions could be WikiProject Punk music, which though a really good beginning, needs much more attention until it is on par with related WikiProjects such as WikiProject hip hop. Thanx. Xsxex 15:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. -Kmaguir1 17:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, "potentially notable" is not a valid keep criterion. Article fails to establish notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• CommentZoe, and others, by what criteria are you basing notability on? is there any chance that a punk house might require a different criteria for notability or have "we" at wikipedia already established criteria for all articles regardless of topic? Xsxex 23:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Wikitravel and Delete. While I found no established consensus or precedent specifically concerning articles about pseudo-fraternal, counter-culture music venue/flophouses (I looked in WP:CORP WP:Music and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents#Cities_and_shops), this does not preclude us from coming to consensus and setting new precedent here. I believe the subject of the article is not notable enough because it is just a local music venue. Maybe some acts that eventually made it big came through the venue, but the same can be said of many other venues, like Okayz Corral in Madison, Wisconsin, which hosted such bands as Nirvana and Barenaked Ladies. Are we going to have articles about all of these local venues just because some eventually famous bands once played there? True, some local venues like CBGB have become legendary on a national scale, but I see no evidence of this for TBP. The first source in the article, a local publication, even refers to TBP as just a place for "mid-grade" acts. If even the local media regard the venue as being of "mid-grade" importance, why should Wikipedia regard it as important enough to merit its own article? I think it ought to be moved to Wikitravel per precedent regarding touristic information Rohirok 00:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. -- ChrisB 01:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Wikitravel and Delete per Rohirok. First, I'm somewhat amused by the armflapping triggered by the absence of notability standards. Notability, regardless of what class the subject falls into, is established by evidence that the subject has been noted. Despite the number of links in the article I'm not convinced that this place has. The Daily Iowan and Iowa State Daily links are passing mentions, others are just simply listings, and Newsbank does not provide anything either (two passing mentions). So absent a portrait of the place in a reliable source it should receive at best a passing mention in the punk house article, which itself needs some serious sourcing. I like the idea about inclusion into Wikitravel though, as long as it meets their guidelines. ~ trialsanderrors 03:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. We can't transwiki to Wikitravel. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• COMMENT Hey, I'm curretly trying to contact users from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Punk music to get more opinions. Please keep the debate open for a few more days. Also I am interested in this Wikitravel idea. What does it entail? Do they have a listing for Iowa City already? Also since the venue is longer functioning, what would be the purpose of the article? Xsxex 06:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the debate closes around Sept 2 or 3. There a listing for Iowa City, yes, but I missed the fact that the house doesn't exist anymore. I guess Wikitravel doesn't make much sense then. ~ trialsanderrors 01:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable enough. DavidJJJ 16:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete simply nn. Eusebeus 19:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:V. Most of the sources given are not reliable, and of those that could be considered reliable the coverage is trivial. Oldelpaso 19:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or at very least Merge with punk house. I have no ideas what notability would say about this, but notability isn't even Wikipedia policy. The fact that many of the bands who played there are notable enough to have their own pages points to the institute itself being notable. The fact that it has survived in multiple incarnations is also interesting. JonnyChance 21:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Dwnsjane2 23:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Notability is an extension of WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, and is frequently used to decide AFD's. It's already merged into punk house anyway, so no need to ask for that. ~ trialsanderrors 01:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Dwnsjane2 23:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per User:Xsxex's notes. There's no established notability for punk houses. If various rail stations around Scotland deserve articles, then so do various Punk houses, which perform much the same function (albeit, for travelling punk kids). Canæn 02:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with punk house. Both articles are pretty sparse at present. If a load of new data on TBP becomes available it can always be separated out again. BTLizard 14:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep- Let's support the music. If anyone supports Punk Music, then I will too! We'll keep this posted LILVOKA 21:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral - According to the article the building had notable guests. Now if this guests are indeed notable (Im clueless about punk) then I would be very much be leaning towards keep. Im suggesting this should be investigated. I do not believe that we should have a article on every building where something happens but this seems notable to me due to the fact that it appears the building was host to notable people. Also I would like to say if very little information is available about the building itself (which I would bet is true) then maybe this would be better off in a list since many lists host information when there is little available to make a fair length article on each list item. - Tutmosis 00:19, 6 September 2006 (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.