Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lombardo's Function Facility

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. Jenks24 (talk) 10:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lombardo's Function Facility

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Questionably notable as it certainly seems well known locally with my searches here, here, here, here and here but I'm not entirely sure this can be better notable and improved. Pinging the only still active user Nihonjoe (who removed the speedy A7). SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wow. Pretty damn obnoxious to have A7-tagged it within a MINUTE after the article was created, but that was six years ago, so. In any event, as a South Shore native, I know of Lombardo's/Chateau de Ville quite well -- the site's been beloved of area high school proms and weddings for over a generation. But that doesn't qualify this for a Wikipedia article. Certainly fails WP:CORPDEPTH, and while there are no doubt a blizzard of possible cites to the local papers, I expect the vast majority will be picture galleries of the Silver Lake High School Class of 1997 Senior Prom and suchlike. Beyond that, the article's a bit of a coatrack for the family and its owner, and ALL of it's a word-for-word copyvio from the function hall's website, most of which I've just removed. Ravenswing 12:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep: In its current state, it reads like a press release or marketing piece, so it definitely needs some work to bring it up to acceptable standards. The references used (the Boston Globe and the Post-Gazetteer) establish enough notability to barely scrape by general notability. Since it's been there since the early 1960s, there are likely other articles which would cement its notability. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I expect you didn't examine those references. The Boston Post-Gazette is a small Italian community weekly that's just a cut above a free supermarket weekly, and that reference is a plain press release. In any event, WP:AUD holds that "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation (such as trade journals), is not an indication of notability." Beyond that, of course it's not enough to suggest that other articles cementing a subject's notability might exist. The GNG requires that they be produced, in order to save an article. Ravenswing 01:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You expect wrong. I know exactly what it is, and the other reference is to the Boston Globe, which meets the rest of WP:AUD that you didn't bother quoting: "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." Boston Globe meets that in spades. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or might ... but that'd be part of that examining thing. That's listed in the "local" section on the website, which at best is published in the Globe's appropriate local section (either Metrowest or "Boston South," I expect), with limited local circulation, and certainly not part of regional or statewide coverage, even if you ignore Hiro's objections below. Ravenswing 03:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've spent some time updating with even more sources and expanded the article some based on some of the information in those sources. I still think it meets WP:ORG, even if just barely. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Ravenswing: Have you looked at it since I added a bunch more refs and information? I also rewrote some of it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. The only notable source, the Boston Globe article, does not address the subject (the facility) directly and in detail, just one aspect of it (its chandelier) and therefore does not count as significant coverage. Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hirolovesswords: I added quite a few new references since your opinion was expressed. What is your opinion on the new refs? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — foxj 04:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly not notable. The refs are mere notices. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The refs are not "mere notices" (whatever that means). There are multiple big articles in multiple reliable news sources in those refs I added. These are not just passing mentions anymore. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Onel5969 Being from the East Coast, would you like to comment? SwisterTwister talk 19:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't inviting a specific user to participate be canvassing? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - But also inviting users interested with that topic, in this case an East Coast place, would hopefully gain a better consensus here. Other East Coast users I can think of that may be interested with this are Bearian, Rms125a@hotmail.com, Liz and Newyorkbrad. SwisterTwister talk 19:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Inviting several is good, especially since I know from experience some of them are impartial (not saying the others aren't just that I have no experience with them). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks for the ping, and I personally don't have a problem with being asked to join a discussion where it's believed I might have some background. However, in this case I am afraid I don't have anything special to offer. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not sure what particular expertise being on the "East Coast" would lend to the conversation -- quite aside from that there are probably only a hundred thousand function halls within a day's drive -- since what we're discussing is whether this subject meets the requirements for an article. Someone from Kazakhstan or Lesotho can do that as well as anyone. As I mentioned above, I know of the facility, but I was born two towns away. I guarantee that there are millions of Massachusetts residents (never mind East Coasters generally) who've never heard of it, to the meager degree that matters for this discussion. Ravenswing 06:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't checked all of the references (but I did check a few) but here in suburban New Jersey, every town has a meeting and event facility for proms, weddings and meetings, many of them family-owned. Lombardi's would have to be exceptional to warrant an article on Wikipedia otherwise we just become a business directory. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: dubious references, likely COI (article created by someone using the username Lombardoff), and, IMO, still reads like advert after almost 7 years. @Ravenswing nailed it. Quis separabit? 20:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks for the ping, but I'm not familiar with this hall. My older sister and her hubby got married at a different place in the Boston area, but this hall was not on their radar. It doesn't look good anyway. Bearian (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems just short of being notable. The awards don't seem to be particularly reputable, though I wouldn't know for certain. The sources are local/regional sources. The building the company uses isn't a registered historic building. The company has been around for awhile, but it doesn't seem to standout in its field. Edit Ferret (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well, I can see where this is going. I find it sad that we have articles on fictional characters that almost entirely reference the DVD collections of the show, and yet people want to delete a small, but well-referenced article on a local landmark. Oh well. I'm no longer watching this discussion, so I won't be replying to any other comments here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: If you think that article doesn't meet the standards, what prevents you from nominating it? In any event, the consensus is plainly that the referencing does not meet notability standards. Ravenswing 06:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.