Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GingerBread Lane (2nd 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   delete. A well argued discussion, though a few of the comments stray from what is strictly relevant to the deletion discussion. It's a close thing, but I see the rough consensus finding that the sources are a bit thin and transitory to truly meet the GNG. The fact that a number of those supporting the keeping of the article qualifed their support as "weak" was useful in finding the consensus here.-- Kubigula (talk) 03:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

GingerBread Lane
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Previously deleted after AFD with advertising and conflict of interest concerns. Was worked on by a user in userspace subpage, now brought here for community consideration on whether or not it should be deleted. Procedural nom, no opinion expressed by nominator. -- Cirt (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete deleted previously for lack of notability, not seeing sufficient improvement. This article was created by the owner of the display and should be deleted as spam.   The subject can be adequately covered (by an editor other than the owner) in the hotel's article. Nothing here worth saving.RadioFan (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree about covering it in the hotel article; the display is not part of the hotel's program and has been displayed many different places in different cities. If it is deleted, it should be deleted, period. --MelanieN (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment' I'd support delete as well. --RadioFan (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment my bad, the owner didn't create the article but he/she has been hounding me on my talk page to "reconsider" my !vote here which I find pretty sleazy. That's all an aside anyway, the article doesn't meet notability guidelines and is still very spammy.  Can be adequately covered in the parent article on the hotel.--RadioFan (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep The article needs to be trimmed of puffery, and it's still COI. And most of the links provided are to passing mentions or photos, rather than in-depth coverage. But IMO two of the sources supplied - the Pittsburgh Gazette and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review - provide in-depth coverage from two different Reliable Sources sufficient to meet Wikipedia's requirements. --MelanieN (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Those links asside, I'm thinking that WP:SPAM and WP:NOTTRAVEL trump here.--RadioFan (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete this mind-numbingly trivial article per WP:SPAM, WP:GNG, and WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not an advertising web host or a directory for extremely trivial stuff such as this.  In fact, this should have been speedied off the project, since it was already deleted through AfD once before.  Qworty (talk) 00:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I had nominated it for speedy deletion but pulled it back because the article was restored by an admin and assumed the admin would turn decline the speedy.  Why waste more editor/admin's time? RadioFan (talk) 00:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment about the COI inherent in this article: In the earlier AfD discussion, and on various talk pages since then, user Kcdcchef has been very frank in stating that (a) he is the creator and owner of Gingerbread Lane and (b) he "paid and contracted" someone to rewrite this article for him. (He seemed to feel that this satisfied a Wikipedia recommendation to have it written by a "neutral third party.") IMO this does not invalidate the notability of the exhibit as demonstrated by the sources I listed above, but other editors may wish to take it into account. --MelanieN (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per . I have made some efforts on cutting puffery down and am still not happy with the COI issues the author has raised. However, I think that the article in its current state does pass WP:GNG, and that the author is trying hard to work within Wikipedia's guidelines even if he's been making some missteps. —Tim Pierce (talk) 17:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per ; though the article needs to cut down on puffery so that WP:SOAP is no longer applicable to it. It is not suitable to have the article covered under Hyatt Regency Crown Center as the connection seems more historical and aside from Kansas City, GingerBread Lane has appeared in other cities, including New York, Washington, D.C., and Pittsburgh. 08OceanBeach S.D.  01:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Trivial promotional mentions in local newspapers and only 1 actual article. If a major national or international source was found then I would be in favour of keeping but at the moment it fails WP:CORPDEPTH -- wintonian  talk  02:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'll be up front and say that part of the reason I recommended keeping the article is that I think it sounds like a nice project and because I appreciate that the author was trying to work within the bounds of Wikipedia policy, and I want to encourage that. I don't dispute that the article still has notability issues. I'm applying WP:IAR here a little bit.  I can see how it would go the other way. —Tim Pierce (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:SPAM, fails WP:GNG JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Sourced appear to meet the GNG threshold. COI and SPAM concerns should be resolved outside of this afd.-- Pink Bull  14:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject? Yep.  Looks like it meets the general notability guideline, and is presumed notable.  Any issues with the article (other than copyright or severe BLP concerns) can be addressed through normal editing procedure. Buddy431 (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: Significant coveragein reliable sources independent of the subject? Nope. These are trivial mentions in local media, of the kind that just about any show would garner. Nothing of substance. Also delete as a matter of principle in order to stick it to the the COI editors. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's unfortunate. If it fails WP:GNG that's a perfectly good reason to delete, but I regret seeing "sticking it to the COI editors" as a motivation, particularly when the editors in question are actively trying to work with Wikipedia editors to do things by the book. It goes against assuming good faith and not biting the newbies. We all should do what we think is right for Wikipedia, but let's not be mean about it. —Tim Pierce (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with FPAS; not enough substantial 3rd party coverage. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, the coverage manages to meet WP:GNG - frankie (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2011 (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.