Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Building 64


 * 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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Building 64

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This has nothing in it that the main article should not, and appears to be centered on self-published work. Qwirkle (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Expanded below to address ’s concerns: This has nothing in it that the main article Alcatraz Island should not, and appears to be centered on self-published work, “The fading voices of Alcatraz” from Authorhouse.Qwirkle (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Not sure what main article is being referred to. Also from what I can find the refs are not self published. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 02:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Looking at all the sources... I can't get over how much is written about this one building.--Moxy (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Arcadia Publishing, always an iffy source; Authorhouse, outright self-published; a...picture book (oddly, not so bad), and the Chronicle book, where we learn that “big guns” are “cannon”! (or is it vice versa? See figure 15. Doesn’t that drip authority?) Qwirkle (talk) 03:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the "find sources" search at the the top of the section. Lots and lots on this small building.--Moxy (talk) 04:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The overwhelming majority I saw from the Google sites were for other buildings, and those I did see for this structure were closely connected with other larger subjects -the Island, the fort, the prison. (Of course, that’s a real weakness with Google; it tries to find the answers it thinks we want to hear based on search history, location, etc.) Qwirkle (talk) 05:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - better addressed in Alcatraz article. Agricolae (talk) 03:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: The two objections would be a merge proposal rather than a delete. Also very little WP:BEFORE seems to have taken place. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 06:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I think I ran through the WP:BEFORE checklist completely, save the foreign versions. It does not appear to have independent notability, and it appears to be used promotionally. Were the self-published material removed, there would be nothing that isn’t already (rightly) in other articles, by the look of it.
 * That said, merging is always an option, although its ambiguous title might make that a problem later. Qwirkle (talk) 06:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * First, the main article is plenty big as it stands and splitting off items has been a benefit to it. Next, as Moxy has pointed out, there is info available to expand it. Finally, there is nothing about the article as it stands that is promotional. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 07:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps could give some examples of encyclopedic content that her(IMS) searches have disclosed?
 * I would say that self-published content is generally promotional, gaining far more from Wiki that it bring to Wiki, and I do not see Champion’s book as an exception. Do you? Qwirkle (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The argument that the main article is too big assumes that this particular building merits significant bulky coverage that would overwhelm the main article. That is not the case.  Just because one author has produced a work of love covering every building and open area on the site does not mean that each deserves their own articles.  It is a perfect example of the tendency of Wikipedia to give inordinate attention to obscure and trivial detail.  Alcatraz is a notable and noteworthy topic.  There had better be some really special independent notability for Building Number Whatever on the site to have to have a standalone article rather than being adequately addressed with a single sentence or two in the main article, and I don't see it.  (Basically, is the fact that it is on Alcatraz incidental to it being notable?  If not, then it is not independently notable.) Agricolae (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * How does removing this information help our readers? There is nothing egregious about the article.... Does deletion help?.
 * First, I’d disagree there is nothing egregious about this article, unless you are contending that most Wiki articles are about subjects without independent notability sourced to self-published work.
 * How does this article harm the reader? Foremost, it misrepresents the importance of something. Wikipedia should reflect informed scholarship about what is notable, not create it. This building has no notability outside of the prison.
 * Also, it increases the volume of words a reader must chew through without increasing the amount of information the reader receives. If there is nothing significant here that isn’t, or shouldn’t be, in one of the potential parent articles, duplication of the same facts simply wastes reader’s time. Qwirkle (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2019 (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.