Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/170 Russell


 * 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 and redirect to Total House. Daniel (talk) 04:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

170 Russell

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This page was recently created following an RM discussion about the parent building it belongs to. Now, I'm on the fence, but have indicated that I think it passes notability checks, but others have stated otherwise, hence I'm opening this discussion. I should note also that the only sources I've found outside of those currently included in the article are the ones linked to above; so if it's notable, it's only just there. Interested to hear your thoughts. Sean Stephens (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. This was a thrice-rejected AfC submission created by a paid editor which literally had one source which is about the actual subject. The rest of the article was an attempt to claim notability for the current non-notable nightclub because it occupies a physical space that once housed a series of more notable but completely unrelated venues, which are now correctly covered in the existing article on Total House, the heritage-listed building that the nightclub is located in. The original paid editor, User:Lucky170, disclosed that he had been paid; after User:Robert McClenon raised questions at AfC, that account was abandoned and two new accounts (User:Runningmarvelman and User:Nouraudes) popped up to aggressively pursue the nightclub's inclusion in Wikipedia. When I removed the content that had nothing whatsoever to do with the current nightclub from this article, we're left with an article so thinly-sourced and content-bare that it almost qualifies for speedy deletion. Virtually every source Sean Stephens produced in the talk page diff above to support his argument for notability was a straight-up directory listing. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I do tend to agree that this article is probably not up to scratch; upon your comment about the quality of the sources, I took some time to review them and realised I was probably wrong in believing there were plenty of sources around which discussed the subject in-depth. Whatever notability is has (if any), it's teetering right on the edge. My concern, however, and reasoning for opening this discussion, was that you'd reverted an editor who restored the article (without consensus). You were both in the wrong here, and two wrongs don't make a right. Despite many editors seeming to think it's the case, it is not up to any one person to decide if an article is fit for inclusion in Wikipedia; that's a decision which can only be established with consensus. All this is getting away from the topic at hand, which is whether this is notable enough to warrant a separate article (which I no longer think is the case). Thank you. Sean Stephens (talk) 02:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I had already told the creator that if he re-established it without sources that were actually about the subject I'd nominate it for deletion, and had every intention of doing so when he went on to do that except that you beat me to the punch. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 03:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Resisting every attempt to improve the article is not the answer, if an editor has genuine concern about the validity of text added, it should be discussed on the talk page, not continuously reverted. Nouraudes (talk) 03:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want to either add a) sources that demonstrate the notability of the current nightclub, or b) sources that establish the link you're trying to claim between the current nightclub and the completely unrelated historical venues, as opposed to trying to revert-war the inclusion of material you haven't even tried to defend I'm absolutely all ears. This just seems like straight-up misleading paid editing backed up by determined revert-warring. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 03:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So I'm both a sock puppet and a paid editor. This just gets better and better. Nouraudes (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You appeared with edits solely related to trying to promote this nightclub shortly after the creating account, which disclosed paid editing, stopped editing. Funny, that. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete The references for the article are mostly directory listings with one mention in passing within a newspaper item about an artist.  Nowhere near enough to establish notability.  Additionally, the article itself contains virtually no information about the venue itself beyond that contained in a single line in the Total House article which IMO is all it deserves. - Nick Thorne talk  03:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment a more comprehensive version has been written, although continues to be the subject of an edit war. The Bulletin article in the latter version is certainly not a directory listing. Nouraudes (talk) 04:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The purported "more comprehensive version" is not about the nightclub at all and attempts to spin more notable venues that rented the same physical space in earlier decades as connected (with no evidence whatsoever) in the hope that people won't look too closely. These more notable venues are already included in the building's article at Total House, which would be the logical place as they're completely unconnected to the current nightclub. The Bulletin article referenced by Nourades is about the original architect and a live theatre he ran in the space in the 1970s before he went bankrupt and it closed; absolutely nothing to do with the later nightclub. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 04:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So it comes down to what is the subject of the article; the physical premises that has existed since 1965, or the music venue that has existed since 1980? If the latter, what happened between 1965 and 1980 is still relevant as background information. perhaps in an abbreviated form. Nouraudes (talk) 04:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We have an article on the physical premises: Total House, which includes all of the content about previous tenants except with better sources. The previous tenants might be relevant as background to the current nightclub, but this draft is trying to derive notability from the earlier tenants (given that there are virtually no sources and no content on the actual nightclub that is the subject of the article) by literally trying to claim that they're the same venue (e.g. I took out this afternoon the claim that Shirley Bassey had performed at Billboard!), which is just not true and not supported by any of the sources. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 04:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * states: Shirley Bassey launching the venue as the Lido Nightclub in 1970, so yes it is correct to include if the article goes back to 1965, but not if only back to 1980. Nouraudes (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There is literally no connection between the Lido (which is also not referred to as a nightclub in any WP:RS) and the Billboard/170 Russell nightclub beyond renting the same basement. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 04:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Which comes down to what is the subject of the article. Nouraudes (talk) 04:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The physical space already has an article in which the actual sourceable content on 170 Russell is one sentence. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 05:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just to clarify, when we say delete in this instance, we mean redirecting to Total House, right? I think it'd be worth a couple of lines or two, in a subsection or something of the like. Sean Stephens (talk) 04:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It already has a sentence in Total House (which could be expanded if any actual sources to support more content turned up), so that makes sense. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 04:46, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There are three options; Delete, Merge or Keep. Each means what it says, delete isn't a default for merge. So editors need to vote what they want to happen.Nouraudes (talk) 04:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not how this works. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 05:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Think you will find out that's how it will work in the end. There are only four real possible outcomes. If the consensus is Delete then the article is removed and the article becomes a redlink, it a Merge then it will end up like this. If a Keep then the article will remain, if No consensus, the status quo will remain, i.e the article will remain in place. Nouraudes (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Nouraudes, Redirect also exists, you know. Clear  friend  a  💬  13:01, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - there's little out there to warrant a standalone article as noted by Nick Thorne and The Drover's Wife above. The article was first drafted by an editor who disclosed being paid by the venue. Most edits since are via a single purpose account (agree they're likely a sock or meat puppet) with very few edits outside this topic . AfD is not a vote btw... I'd have probably deleted the draft as promotional editing had it been caught early on. -- Longhair\talk 05:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete I cannot see anything other than own site, advertising, social media, infomercials, etc. If there is something else, please advise and I will reconsider.  Aoziwe (talk) 10:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Sammy D III (talk) 11:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Blatant attempt to camouflage spamvertising as an article. Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 18:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Total House. BD2412  T 18:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Total House. Deus et lex (talk) 01:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge (partial) > Total House. Djflem (talk) 07:26, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Total House. As The Drover's Wife said, Total House already has one sentence about 170 Russell, and more information can be added if more sources pop up. Clear  friend  a  💬  12:46, 1 August 2021 (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.