Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elsewhere (music venue)


 * 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 keep. North America1000 03:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Elsewhere (music venue)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails NCORP. The only reason it got noticed was to build a representation in Minecraft.  scope_creep Talk  19:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with nominator--and the coverage is not there. Drmies (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a major independent music venue. The planning of it was the subject of a NY Times piece in 2017:. The nominator clearly did not do any research prior to nomination as the claim that it is only notable due to the Minecraft story is ridiculous. There is definitely work to be done to expand the article, but the sources that are now linked in the article demonstrate notability in my opinion. Thriley (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If the Minecraft link wasn't there, it wouldn't have been mentioned, which is the true definition of being non-notable.   scope_creep Talk  23:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep The coverage was there prior to the Minecraft event. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What coverage? Two little newspaper articles, and boom you're in the encyclopedia? Drmies (talk) 01:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:BEFORE search yielded many independent reliable sources, most of which were dated before 27 May 2020, and that's significant coverage. Four of those have been added as citations by other users and I've added a little more content to the article itself. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I added additional strong citations. The article is a stub and needs to be pushed out. That said, this is a keep in my mind. --Wil540 art (talk) 03:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Coverage in multiple reliable sources. Expansion is possible and desirable. Station1 (talk) 07:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, as there is enough coverage overall to show notabilityJackattack1597 (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.