Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:ITSACASTLE

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: keep. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ITSACASTLE


Circular-logic, childish drivel, which basically says "the article should be kept because it should be kept!!!!! Silly!!! Nuff said!!!!"

Insofar as there is any substance, it says these things are often mentioned in travel guides ... but WP:NOTTRAVEL, and travel guides have few of the qualities of WP:Reliable sources.

The essay itself quotes someone else describing it as a "a piss-pathetic essay". That is way too kind to it. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep in mainspace as a multiauthored project related opinion, on the assumption that, who added this, supports it's location in projectspace. Otherwise, userfy as a disputed single author essay.
 * In either case, rename to titlecase, to that it does not look like a project shortcut. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * This was an essay started by Doncram and after sorting through the links the only user who has ever linked to it in a deletion discussion is Doncram. I have a big problem with this, since it's essentially a single-user personal essay being used to ignore the fact WP:NBUILD/WP:GEOFEAT is not an absolute marker of notability at AfD. Favour any result from deletion to userfyication. SportingFlyer  T · C  00:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Obviously. It is an essay that is the opinion of one or more Wikipedia editors. It covers castles, museums, public attractions. It is a minimalist-style essay, pointing out succinctly that castles, museums, and other public attractions are pretty obviously wikipedia-notable, because abundant sources exist about them. It is my opinion that not much needs to be said.
 * The deletion nomination relates to my mention of wp:ITSAMUSEUM at Articles for deletion/Nikola Tesla Memorial Center, an AFD nominated by BrownHairedGirl, where I just commented that their nomination was poor in quality, because IMHO it is unlikely that they performed wp:BEFORE, and because IMHO it is pretty obvious that museums open to the public are wikipedia-notable.
 * I don't known if it is very relevant to this MFD, but I have personally been experiencing a number of BrownHairedGirl (BHG)'s interactions with me as amounting to wp:Bullying and Bullying. This might be the subject of a future wp:ANI or wp:arbitration. On my talk page is an comment by BHG to which i replied, to which they have not further replied. I accept however that this MFD is about the validity of the essay, whether or not BHG has been engaging in bullying. --Doncram (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Doncram, I did WP:BEFORE, and as I noted in the nomination, (e.g. Gbooks just throws up pasing mentions). AGF please.
 * If you want to make a complaint about my alleged "bullying", then you know where WP:ANI is; this page is not ANI. Good luck in fabricating whatever evidence you need, because there has been no "bullying" so your only hope is fabrication. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, well BHG is doing "piss-pathetic" IMHO in their ongoing AFD, having so far garnered seven "Keep" votes so far and no support so far for deletion. I actually don't mind their characterization of the essay as "the article should be kept because it should be kept!!!!! Silly!!! Nuff said!!!!".  IMHO that is the appropriate quality of response to AFD nominations such as theirs. --Doncram (talk) 05:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)  Sorry, i was going off-topic and i didn't need to say that. --Doncram (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment — "and travel guides have few of the qualities of WP:Reliable sources." The travel guides I normally buy and read are typically published with editorial supervision.  Perhaps you wish to explain what you meant by this?  I may wish to view this as one more opinion desiring to push us in the direction of a news site which reflects only news sources, regardless of how low in quality those sources may be. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  01:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, imho BHG's complaint about travel guides is off-base. The article does not give telephone numbers, opening hours, etc., which is the topic of wp:NOTTRAVEL.  The guideline about NOTTRAVEL is that we should not try to provide opening hours etc.  Which is not at all to say that independent travel guides (which indeed might provide opening hours along with substantial info about the importance of sites) cannot be reliable sources.  In fact high-quality travel guides can indeed be very reliable sources.  And in general, museums like this are likely to be covered in high-quality travel guides, and are pretty obviously wikipedia-notable. --Doncram (talk) 01:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC) 01:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC) 05:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Userfy to User:Doncram/It's a castle and delete the WP shortcuts per SportingFlyer. CoolSkittle  (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Essays: Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community as they may be created and edited without overall community oversight. Following the instructions or advice given in an essay is optional. ... The value of an essay should be understood in context, using common sense and discretion. Essays can be written by anyone and can be long monologues or short theses, serious or funny.  I see no reason to delete any essay unless it were defamatory or illogical and since this one is neither it should stay. Markvs88 (talk) 03:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. The vast majority of castles are inherently notable. This is a relevant arguement for castle AfDs which nearly always close keep (this was written after such an AfD).Icewhiz (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is what it is. It is also an essay.  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep the page could use some good editing but the premise is spot on. I've got guidebooks from many publishers I've field tested around the world and I consider them very reliable sources. Lonely Planet, for example, not only has a writing team and editors but solicits corrections from readers, acknowledged in the next edition. Wikipedia is not interested in the stuff that changes like opening times and prices but the history and descriptive write up on the museum or castle etc is going to be darn accurate, distilled to the most important details, especially after the guidebook has been through an update or two or ten. Recently I approved Batumi Piazza which is a tourist attraction (and totally cool - check out photos on page and linked). It's notable because website after website talks about it when discussing what to see in Batumi. Legacypac (talk) 07:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Merely sums up common sense and is a reaction to ludicrous claims by deletionists, in their personal quests to delete as much of other editors' work as possible for their own arcane reasons (often, I suspect, merely because they enjoy it), that such sites are not notable. I should point out that most of them meet the criteria of WP:GEOFEAT too. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - In my opinion the essay is well written and useful. This essay is all common sense and is within the scope of Essays. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:56, 22 March 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.