Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Keramikou 28

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Allan Nonymous (talk | contribs) at 19:08, 2 November 2024. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:08, 2 November 2024 by Allan Nonymous (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Keramikou 28

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not a G4, but substantively the same issues raised at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kerameikou 28 where it was deleted. Opening this discussion since content better assessed here than at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Improper_vanishing_and_restoration_of_a_deleted_article Star Mississippi 16:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Greece. Star Mississippi 16:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Could you please share the problems of the current Keramikou 28 page? IlEssere (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Please read the prior discussion and the ANI in which you are participating. Several editors have made it clear and there is no need to duplicate the same discussion here. Star Mississippi 17:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

This is my first AfD, so I apologize for any confusion. I reviewed the previous discussion and the ANI thread to gain a better understanding, but the discussions seem to overlap with various viewpoints and references to the previous article.

If it’s appropriate to ask, could you clarify the reasons on here so others can see it on its AfD as well? This would help make the issues with this page clearer. IlEssere (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Metaxourgeio#Landmarks_and_attractions: it is listed there; and merge content offering outline of the building with best sources (artnet, lifo); not fiercely opposed to Keep. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Film, and History. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep, while I do see some neutrality issues in the article, there's no need for redirection or deletion given that the article underwent wp:tnt which was given as a reason for deletion in the first place, and that the topic itself has enough sources to establish notability. As said, if neutrality or other prose issues occur, it is best to raise the issue on the talk page. ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep. I vaguely recall this Draft, and I apparently reviewed and declined it four times (though that's not in the article history) for npov and source issues.

My feelings are it was correctly accepted by @ToadetteEdit on this revision.

The article has since been expanded and some npov language has crept back in. I think it's easily salvageable as an article by slimming down some of the text. I do believe it passes notability. Qcne (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The revision accepted by ToadetteEdit would be probably eligible for G4, as it seems to be just a cut-down version of the deleted article. Janhrach (talk) 10:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

It’s important to focus on the core issue of this AfD discussion without complicating it with questions of revision, notability, references, or article quality, but to ensure the article maintains a neutral point of view.

But for the record, the revision accepted by@ToadetteEdit is not merely a cut-down version of the previously deleted article. The article has been actively updated and is still undergoing improvements, with new information and references being added. IlEssere (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a straight up delete and salt. The sequence goes: (1) Attempt to create the promotional version at AfC: declined. (2) Make a less promotional version, get through AfC, then add in the promotion: deleted at AfD. (3) Make a new account, create a less promotional version using a variant title. Pretend to be new and confused as a smokescreen. Pretend that the problem is the sources in Greek, when the problem is that this is fundamentally an advert. Clearly, the next stage is to add promotional content tweak by tweak, and we simply do not have time for this. It's a timesink, a quagmire of our precious volunteer time. And the re-creation with a variant title is unacceptable. We must not reward that behaviour with success.—S Marshall T/C 00:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
As I have mentioned before, I have no association with the previous creator or the previous page. This is not Attempt to create the promotional version at AfC: declined. (2) Make a less promotional version, get through AfC, then add in the promotion: deleted at AfD. (3) Make a new account, create a less promotional version using a variant title. IlEssere (talk) 01:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
I've asked several times to understand any specific concerns with the article so that I can make the necessary adjustments. Could you please share which sections you find promotional? I’d be happy to revise them accordingly. IlEssere (talk) 01:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@S Marshall, can you see what's changed in the article? It is not a notability issue but a neutrality issue. The user was relatively new and did not know the policies and guidelines of the Misplaced Pages. If we just delete and salt the two titles at the very least, it would rather prevent a good faith, neutrality free article from being submitted. IMO it is not an advert, but neutrality is still there and should be rewritten. ToadetteEdit (talk) 05:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
I agree with @ToadetteEdit. In my view, the neutrality issue could be addressed effectively by encouraging edits from everyone involved in the AfD discussion. As you mentioned, I’m new to Misplaced Pages and was not fully familiar with all of its policies and guidelines. I don’t have any intention to promote the article. Simply deleting and salting both titles will prevent the submission of a well balanced good faith article in the future. IlEssere (talk) 13:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete per S Marshall. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep, In terms of neutrality and notability, there is a strong case to be made for the preservation and further development of an article on contemporary Greek art. Although there may be areas for improvement in tone and neutrality, these issues can be addressed through edits and discussion on the article's talk page rather than redirection or deletion. Contemporary Greek art, with its rich foundation and modern evolution, holds significant cultural and artistic relevance. Ample sources attest to its importance and influence, solidifying its notability. Rather than deletion, it’s more productive to refine the article’s language and improve its adherence to Misplaced Pages's neutrality standards, ensuring it accurately represents contemporary Greek art's impact on the global art landscape. IlEssere (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment I've written a few articles on buildings. This building might be notable from my own WP:BEFORE search, but I haven't been able to clearly conclude that it is, because almost all of the sources are on the art group which used the building and are not on the building themselves (there's one exception, the oneman.gr source on the building sale). The issue is that this isn't really an article on the building, but rather an article on the group which took it over and preserved it. The reasons I'm having such difficulty with this one, beyond the fact the articles are in Greek and need to be translated, are because there's something notable here - probably Communitism, which gets several hits on Google Scholar, although this does seem promotional in that regard and would need to be rewritten (a good start would be to eliminate any primary sources). So, in short, the building probably isn't notable, the art group behind the building is clearly notable, we can't just move the article because it's too much about the building, but draftifying and modifying the article to be about the art group seems like the best result to me. SportingFlyer T·C 06:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
It sounds like there may be a misunderstanding on what makes this building notable. The significance of the building actually comes from the variety of artist groups (its not one group) that have occupied and utilized it over time, rather than from a single group that established or preserved it. This continuous, collective engagement by different artists has contributed to its cultural relevance. Perhaps it would be better to frame the article to reflect the building as a dynamic space, continually redefined by these groups, with an emphasis on their work and influence rather than on the structure itself. The groups that where associated with the building including ReMap, Kunsthalle Athena and last of all Communitism. Please keep in mind the buidling was known by these names during each time period IlEssere (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete and salt per S Marshal, with an added note that notability is not inheritable, so even if important groups performed there, they don't contribute from a notability perspective. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Categories: