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. ✗plicit 23:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kerameikou 28 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Concerns in the templates on the top. The author bypassed AfC (after two failed attempts) by submitting a significantly shortened version and, after the approval, readding the controversial parts. I would draftify this, but WP:DRAFT prohibits this on articles older than 90 days. Janhrach (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Greece. Janhrach (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Given that it was just moved to mainspace last month, I'm not sure the draft prohibition applies, but better to get consensus here. I think there's enough to meet N:ORG, but this article would need to be gutted and eyes kept on it for it to survive. Would a p-block for the creator who clearly has a COI help? Star Mississippi 16:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems that there are no editors, apart from the creator, who are interested in improvement of the article. On the other hand, there is a problem with how the article is written, and I think that the author should not be allowed to edit the article if they do not demonstrate a significant improvement of their tone. I am against keeping this in mainspace. An alternative to draftification is reverting to the AfC-accepted version. Janhrach (talk) 08:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The article was initially composed in a different tone than Wikipedia's standard and was accepted only after Qcne (talk) agreed and accepted the writing tone.

  The "concerns" raised about Keramikou 28 appear to be more personally motivated than reflective of adherence to Wikipedia rules.

  With regard to the observation that the page seemingly lacks editors, it is important to clarify that this does not contravene Wikipedia rules. It is also essential to recognize that the page is only a week old.

  Additionally, concerns raised about the article's writing style have been addressed and accepted by a nativespeaker of the english language Qcne (talk), in contrast with Janhrach who lacks proficiency in the English language and is at an intermediate level, NOT PROFICIENT. Errico Boukoura (talk) 13:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As you can see in the links below, it was not Qcne who did approve the article, nor it was moved to mainspace a week ago. I mentioned a low potential editor count in the context of moving back to draft namespace and a partial block, as unmaintained drafts are deleted after some time. And I do not have to be an advanced speaker of English to recognize that phrases like "a variety of exhibitions [...] within its historic walls", "[...] took a dramatic turn", "embodying its radical spirit through countless exhibitions [...]", "the legacy [...] endures as a testament to [...]" are not appropriate in a encyclopedia. Janhrach (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Qcne (talk) confirmation was about the tone of Keramikou 28 was written upon, and conformed appropriately for Wikipedia.

  That being said, Janhrach intermediate level of English does not allow the effective understanding of the writing tone. Thus, for non-native English speakers, it is required to be proficient in English for such corrections.

  Breakdown of the mentioned phrases by by Janhrach:

  "A variety of exhibitions [...]"

  Stating that a variety of exhibitions took place is surely not in any way in violation of any Wikipedia protocol.

  "Within its historic walls [...]"

  The building is more than 100 years old, which categorizes it as historic.

  IMPORTANT NOTE: The Greek Ministry of Culture mandates that any building or structure within Greek territory more than 100 years old to be considered a historic site.

  "Took a dramatic turn[...]"

  A dramatic turn indeed occurred. I am not sure why this would be the wrong word to use.

  "Embodying its radical spirit through countless exhibitions [...]",

  There is a reference by BBC regarding the Athenian art scene that has been EXACTLY copied and pasted from that article.

  "The legacy [...]"

  This could spark a debate, but it still follows the rules of the Greek Ministry of Culture.

  "Endures as a testament to [...]"

  ??

  Morever, as metioned by Star Mississippi there's enough to meet N:ORG. Errico Boukoura (talk) 11:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  NOTE: The mentioned parentheses have been temporarily changed until it is confirmed that Janhrach emphasis are wrong. Errico Boukoura (talk) 12:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not sure, but you are probably referring to your two edits to the article. As far as I know, the phrase "take a turn" is not meaningful is this context. (Edit: my mistake, it is.) The second edit was useful and constructive, but you have maybe misunderstood me, I referred to a different phrase. (The above list is not exhaustive.) Janhrach (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Addressing your arguments:

  1. Please post the diff number of Qcne's confirmation. (Edit: my bad, I didn't understand that you meant that you responded to Qcne, not the other way around.)
  2. The word variety was not of particular issue. What I had an issue with is the usage of "within [...] walls" as a metaphor for "inside the building". It is unencyclopedic.
  3. "to take a dramatic turn" is an informal phrase. The whole phrase is a problem, not just the word dramatic.
  4. When you make a verbatim quote, you should use quotation marks, it didn't look like being quoted. What is worse, however, is that there is no reference on the statement, so it may constitute a copyright infringement. I could not find the said phrase at the URL you supplied, could you please write in which paragraph it is? Thank you.
  5. Please clarify why do you consider the last phrase ok. I didn't understand. The words testament and endures are particularly off-tone.
  6. The fact that the subject passes WP:NORG doesn't mean the article couldn't be draftified or deleted.

  Janhrach (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Addressing the addressing issues:

  1. No worries
  2. The phrase "within its historic walls" has been changeed to "within its walls".
  3. The phrase "to take a dramatic turn" has been changeed to "underwent a significant transformation".
  4. I am not sure which quote you are referring to (Please share it so it can be handled).
  5. The phrase "testament and endures "has been changed to "stands".
  6. As mentioned by Star Mississippi; Given that this page was just moved to mainspace last month, NO draft prohibition applies. There's enough to meet N:ORG, meaing there is enought N:ORG to keep the page and NOT draftified or deleted (N:ORG is currently not a reason for draftification or deletion so far).

  As you are more concerned about the tone, please reply regarding issue 4, and let me know which other words you believe should be changed. The issue regarding N:ORG is currently not a point of contention, as both Star Mississippi and I are in concurrence on this matter. This alignment results in a collective agreement of 2 versus 1.

  Note: If a third party agrees that the tone did not need to be changed and did not break any rules of Wikipedia, it will be changed back to how it was originally written. Errico Boukoura (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Important Update:

  CONTEXT:

  I am a professor of Fine Arts with a focus on Greek-American art and the Greek contemporary art scene.

  Kerameikou 28 was a project I recently started researching because I believe it could serve as a good example for social centers in the United States.

  Research Update:

  While researching for further information regarding Kerameikou 28 due to Janhrach's concerns for N:ORG, I found the phone number of one of the previous owners.

  It appears that the new owner complained to the previous owners about the Kerameikou 28 Wikipedia page, expressing a desire to transform the building into an Artist Residency.

  The previous owner I spoke with on the phone mentioned that the new owner threatened them regarding the Wikipedia page of Kerameikou 28 if they didn't address this matter.

  While this is hypothetical, Janhrach might be associated with the new owner, implying a potential conflict of interest. Errico Boukoura (talk) 11:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Note: four sections were removed from the article several hours ago. Janhrach (talk) 07:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Keramikou 28 initially had two failed attempts when submitted, but this was solely due to the incorrect writing tone ( AND NOT due the submitting a significantly shortened version as mentioned above). It is important to note that after the first failed attempt of publishing Keramikou 28, the writing was reexamined and adhered to Wikipedia rules.

Additionally, more information was added to the page as additional proof (reference link) was found regarding Keramikou 28. However, we have deleted this added information after Keramikou 28 went live, as user Janhrach believes there was insufficient evidence (reference links) and did not approve of the written tone.

Janhrach note was taken seriously, and we have removed the added information. We will make efforts to find more information or proof to comply with Wikipedia's rules.

All the best,

Errico Boukoura Errico Boukoura (talk) 11:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I claimed not that the article didn't pass AfC because of being shortened, but that it did pass AfC because of that. The article still isn't well-referenced, nor has its tone been fixed. Relevant AfC review diffs (I was mistaken, they are more than two.): Special:Diff/1176695262, Special:Diff/1177158473, Special:Diff/1177960977, Special:Diff/1183832995, Special:Diff/1187303157, Special:Diff/1187708015. Janhrach (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please share with us which exact parts are not well-referenced. Errico Boukoura (talk) 11:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Every non-trivial claim should be sourced. For example, the Community scetion is completely unsourced (ignoring the refences that do not seem to have much to do with this article, except being about the said people). Many other claims do not have references. If they are supported by already used sources, you should reuse them, not let the reader search for the correct reference. Janhrach (talk) 14:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Community has four different references that back up most of the things said. It is impossible to have a reference for every line, and about 90% of the information said on the Community can be found in the references mentioned. Additionally, the other five references on the page can also support everything that is being said in the Community section. Errico Boukoura (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: A new reference has been added in the Community section with further information that delves deeper than what this section says. It backs up not only the claims in the Community section but also the activities. Errico Boukoura (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this is an absolute mess, because we now have no idea what article we're actually deleting. The comments that unacceptable text will be replaced, above, are really unhelpful because they mean that anyone voting keep will potentially find themselves voting to keep something other than what's there. When we discuss changes to articles, they shouldn't be temporary, conditional changes, made to secure a keep at AfD, with the clear understanding that they'll be undone as soon as the article is kept!

To summarise my point of view: the building or commune within it may be notable, but when challenged, editors writing in Wikipedia are utterly obliged to find sources independent of the subject to back up what they say, and confirm notability. Too many of the current sources appear to be press-releases. Unless proper sources appear, the article cannot be in main-space in its present form. Draftify would be kind. TNT and start over would be an alternative. Elemimele (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, great argument. I lean towards draftification, because the article isn't irreparable. The above discussion should probably left in its current state as you said. This ANI thread should be mentioned, as it is relevant the discussion shifted to the article at once (edited 08:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)). Janhrach (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion is hard to make sense of. We are discussing what should happen with this specific article and that should be the focus. Also, there is no need to bold or CAPITALIZE any words, it is just distracting and doesn't help win over editors to your argument, it is just irritating.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Note: At the time of the nomination, Special:Diff/1189925650 was the latest revision. Janhrach (talk) 08:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• This isn't an encyclopedia article about an artistic community. It's an essay about them. I think it's quite possible that we should have an article about the artists, but I don't think that this is a useful starting point for that article. I also don't think that we can work with the creator to fix it -- his behaviour shows that he's not willing to adapt to Wikipedia and he expects us to adapt to him. Delete as WP:TNT.—S Marshall T/C 10:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @S Marshall: Could you please clarify why do you consider this article an essay? Otherwise, I more or less agree with your arguments. Janhrach (talk) 12:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  (1) The WP:TONE is unencyclopaedic; (2) its style is WP:EMPHATIC; and (3) it isn't WP:TERSE. It's full of needless modifiers (adjectives and adverbs), some of which border on peacocking. Someone really passionate about Kerameiko28 might write the content we're considering on an information leaflet -- we, as dispassionate and objective encyclopaedia writers, need to be succinct, direct, and clear. Take the following totally uncited paragraph:

The transformation of the building into an artists hub elevated its status in the Athenian subculture art scene. It provided a venue for both emerging and established artists to exhibit their work and engage in creative pursuits outsied traditional galleries and museums. The building came to symbolize the vibrant artistic community of the city, hosting a variety of exhibitions, performances, and initiative projects.

Well that's three sentences. The facts they're trying to convey are: (First sentence) The building became a hub for artists and performers. (Second sentence) Artists and performers could exhibit their work there. (Third sentence) Many did.

How would you write that in simple, clear, direct English that would be accessible to a curious child or a person whose first language wasn't English? There are quite a few ways but none of them have anything to do with what this author wrote.

From reading what they say, I think the author expects us to follow him around fixing this, and, no, we won't -- absolutely not. We simply don't have the volunteers to do that. If this person wants to write for Wikipedia, they need to become competent at writing articles before they start.—S Marshall T/C 13:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you wrote exactly what I think about the tone, I just didn't understand this specific sense of the word essay. Janhrach (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TNT. If there can be an article on this, starting from scratch would be cleaner than trying to fix the brochure language here. XOR'easter (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. I agree with S Marshall that this article is not encyclopedic in tone, and we'd need to remove so much of it to get down to the core facts it might as well be done over from scratch. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per TNT, I agree with S Marshall and the two editors above. This article is a trainwreck, and the editor bludgeoning this debate should be restricted from contributing to it further and also from being involved in any potential re-creation. This is not how Wikipedia editing processes work. Daniel (talk) 22:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Happy holidays, everyone!

  I apologize if it seemed like I was unwilling to correct this Wikipedia page.

  As mentioned above, please write all of your concerns regarding this page in one comment so I can review them and make the necessary changes.

  As there are more than two editors in this discussion at this point, it's a bit chaotic. So, I invite each one of you to comment with all of your concerns under this comment. Errico Boukoura (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not how this works. At this point, we are in discussion about whether or not to delete the article outright. The arguments have been presented above. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is now the fifth time that Errico Boukoura has tried to dictate the location and formatting of discussions incorrectly - [1] [2] [3] [4]. It's starting to get a little bit dull, and is verging on disruptive. Daniel (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note, @Janhrach and Errico Boukoura:, please be aware of WP:BLUDGEON and allow other editors to weigh in. Errico Boukoura, please do not dictate how participants can provide feedback. That is not how it is handled. Star Mississippi 15:37, 27 December 2023 (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.