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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keramikou 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)

Not a G4, but substantively the same issues raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kerameikou 28 where it was deleted. Opening this discussion since content better assessed here than at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Improper_vanishing_and_restoration_of_a_deleted_article Star Mississippi 16:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Greece. Star Mississippi 16:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please share the problems of the current Keramikou 28 page? IlEssere (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the prior discussion and the ANI in which you are participating. Several editors have made it clear and there is no need to duplicate the same discussion here. Star Mississippi 17:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first AfD, so I apologize for any confusion. I reviewed the previous discussion and the ANI thread to gain a better understanding, but the discussions seem to overlap with various viewpoints and references to the previous article.

If it’s appropriate to ask, could you clarify the reasons on here so others can see it on its AfD as well? This would help make the issues with this page clearer. IlEssere (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Metaxourgeio#Landmarks_and_attractions: it is listed there; and merge content offering outline of the building with best sources (artnet, lifo); not fiercely opposed to Keep. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirecting to Metaxourgeio#Landmarks_and_attractions would limit the information available about the building, as there are many details that could be included. A redirect would offer only a brief mention, and anyone wanting to learn more would need to search online for various articles rather than finding all the information in one place like now. IlEssere (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Film, and History. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, while I do see some neutrality issues in the article, there's no need for redirection or deletion given that the article underwent wp:tnt which was given as a reason for deletion in the first place, and that the topic itself has enough sources to establish notability. As said, if neutrality or other prose issues occur, it is best to raise the issue on the talk page.The ANI suggests that the page creators are identical and may have a COI on the topic, evident with the neutrality tone, but given that it already passed the AfD, I am not advancing deletion with salting. I'll go with delete, the concerns brought up by S Marshall is alarming. The evidence is becoming predictable and since unfixable disputed neutrality contravenes wp:npov, the article should be deleted. To note that promotional tone is often one of the reasons for deletion. ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:Keep. I vaguely recall this Draft, and I apparently reviewed and declined it four times (though that's not in the article history) for npov and source issues.

My feelings are it was correctly accepted by @ToadetteEdit on this revision.

The article has since been expanded and some npov language has crept back in. I think it's easily salvageable as an article by slimming down some of the text. I do believe it passes notability. Qcne (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after seeing evidence bellow. qcne (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The revision accepted by ToadetteEdit would be probably eligible for G4, as it seems to be just a cut-down version of the deleted article. Janhrach (talk) 10:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s important to focus on the core issue of this AfD discussion without complicating it with questions of revision, notability, references, or article quality, but to ensure the article maintains a neutral point of view.

But for the record, the revision accepted by@ToadetteEdit is not merely a cut-down version of the previously deleted article. The article has been actively updated and is still undergoing improvements, with new information and references being added. IlEssere (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this is a straight up delete and salt. The sequence goes: (1) Attempt to create the promotional version at AfC: declined. (2) Make a less promotional version, get through AfC, then add in the promotion: deleted at AfD. (3) Make a new account, create a less promotional version using a variant title. Pretend to be new and confused as a smokescreen. Pretend that the problem is the sources in Greek, when the problem is that this is fundamentally an advert. Clearly, the next stage is to add promotional content tweak by tweak, and we simply do not have time for this. It's a timesink, a quagmire of our precious volunteer time. And the re-creation with a variant title is unacceptable. We must not reward that behaviour with success.—S Marshall T/C 00:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As I have mentioned before, I have no association with the previous creator or the previous page. This is not Attempt to create the promotional version at AfC: declined. (2) Make a less promotional version, get through AfC, then add in the promotion: deleted at AfD. (3) Make a new account, create a less promotional version using a variant title. IlEssere (talk) 01:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've asked several times to understand any specific concerns with the article so that I can make the necessary adjustments. Could you please share which sections you find promotional? I’d be happy to revise them accordingly. IlEssere (talk) 01:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @S Marshall, can you see what's changed in the article? It is not a notability issue but a neutrality issue. The user was relatively new and did not know the policies and guidelines of the Wikipedia. If we just delete and salt the two titles at the very least, it would rather prevent a good faith, neutrality free article from being submitted. IMO it is not an advert, but neutrality is still there and should be rewritten. ToadetteEdit (talk) 05:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with @ToadetteEdit. In my view, the neutrality issue could be addressed effectively by encouraging edits from everyone involved in the AfD discussion. As you mentioned, I’m new to Wikipedia and was not fully familiar with all of its policies and guidelines. I don’t have any intention to promote the article. Simply deleting and salting both titles will prevent the submission of a well balanced good faith article in the future. IlEssere (talk) 13:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Followup of my comment, what evidence have let to your conclusion that the article is promotional in tone? ToadetteEdit (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd also like to see the evidence that supports the claim that the article is promotional. So far, it’s only been mentioned that it has a promotional tone, but without any specific details or examples to explain where or why. It would be helpful to have more clarity on that point. IlEssere (talk) 14:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per S Marshall. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, In terms of neutrality and notability, there is a strong case to be made for the preservation and further development of an article on contemporary Greek art. Although there may be areas for improvement in tone and neutrality, these issues can be addressed through edits and discussion on the article's talk page rather than redirection or deletion. Contemporary Greek art, with its rich foundation and modern evolution, holds significant cultural and artistic relevance. Ample sources attest to its importance and influence, solidifying its notability. Rather than deletion, it’s more productive to refine the article’s language and improve its adherence to Wikipedia's neutrality standards, ensuring it accurately represents contemporary Greek art's impact on the global art landscape. IlEssere (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've written a few articles on buildings. This building might be notable from my own WP:BEFORE search, but I haven't been able to clearly conclude that it is, because almost all of the sources are on the art group which used the building and are not on the building themselves (there's one exception, the oneman.gr source on the building sale). The issue is that this isn't really an article on the building, but rather an article on the group which took it over and preserved it. The reasons I'm having such difficulty with this one, beyond the fact the articles are in Greek and need to be translated, are because there's something notable here - probably Communitism, which gets several hits on Google Scholar, although this does seem promotional in that regard and would need to be rewritten (a good start would be to eliminate any primary sources). So, in short, the building probably isn't notable, the art group behind the building is clearly notable, we can't just move the article because it's too much about the building, but draftifying and modifying the article to be about the art group seems like the best result to me. SportingFlyer T·C 06:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It sounds like there may be a misunderstanding on what makes this building notable. The significance of the building actually comes from the variety of artist groups (its not one group) that have occupied and utilized it over time, rather than from a single group that established or preserved it. This continuous, collective engagement by different artists has contributed to its cultural relevance. Perhaps it would be better to frame the article to reflect the building as a dynamic space, continually redefined by these groups, with an emphasis on their work and influence rather than on the structure itself. The groups that where associated with the building including ReMap, Kunsthalle Athena and last of all Communitism. Please keep in mind the buidling was known by these names during each time period IlEssere (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I simply don't see enough sources on the building itself. They're all on the groups which were associated with the building, and the building is mostly mentioned in passing. SportingFlyer T·C 04:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Check the links below. IlEssere (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, the only one of those I think counts might be the oneman article, and I am not sure if it is considered reliable. We need articles on the building, not on the groups that used it. (Actually, the law preserving the building - if translation is working correctly - is not a bad source.) SportingFlyer T·C 16:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please review all of the links I provided above. And yes, you probably translated the law preserving the building correctly. the Greek state officially recognized the building as significant, which should add to its credibility as a notable source. Let me know if any other clarification is needed! IlEssere (talk) 04:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt per S Marshal, with an added note that notability is not inheritable, so even if important groups performed there, they don't contribute from a notability perspective. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Even though notability is not inheritable, there are at least two sources that speak about the building in detail. ToadetteEdit (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The building is recognized by the Greek state for cultural importance and the budling is under protection as seen here; https://gold-ailina-51.tiiny.site/ . The building didn't not inherited the notability, but the budling its self has hosted various significant contemporary exhibitions, including exhibition of the Athens Biennale and Documenta 14. IlEssere (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• IMPORTANT LINKs regrading notability of the building; Since some users have concerns regarding the potential neutrality and accuracy of the page, and considering the commitment to maintain a balanced perspective, I thought it would be helpful to share some relevant links that provide additional context.

• Delete and salt per S Marshall and my comments at the last AfD. I second Allan Nonymous's rationale directly above. Further, the above bludgeoning should be collapsed by an uninvolved editor. Daniel (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Your rationale in the previous AfD does not contribute to the current state of the article, given that it is already expanded enough. ToadetteEdit (talk) 10:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "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." - this part doesn't apply here, given the bludgeoning immediately above? Daniel (talk) 10:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There seems to be something here; more than we see in numerous comparable articles. (Yes, I know, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.) But given how long this concoction has been criticized for its prose, the percentage of the (near?) meaningless in the current version is remarkable and depressing. Consider for example: Under the umbrella of Communitism, the building was organized into distinct circles, each with its own goals and responsibilities. This structure allowed for the simultaneous operation of multiple autonomous initiatives within the same physical space. During this time, the building hosted a vibrant ecosystem where artists, activists, and community members exchanged ideas and collaborated on projects. Perhaps meaning: Espousing Communitism, the building was organized into distinct areas, thus allowing multiple projects at any one time. Artists, activists, and community members discussed and collaborated on projects. But I'm not at all sure: Working out what, if anything, this windy prose means (and which parts of this are worth saying) requires too much examination of sources, or guesswork, or both. Perhaps one or two (or more) of those editors who are keen that this article should be preserved would care to rewrite it for a greatly improved signal-to-noise ratio. And quickly. -- Hoary (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• For the record, I have absolutely no idea why this needs to be salted. There's a notable topic here. It's just not the building. SportingFlyer T·C 04:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @SportingFlyer: I skimmed the ANI thread linked above. A different (?) user had created similar page on the same topic that was deleted. The ANI participants say this article was (re)created through gaming the system, they suspect sockpuppetry (or meatpuppetry or improper WP:CANVASSing). They are thus proposing salting to prevent further unwanted behavior and time wasted on deleting these. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 10:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess you are not getting the point. The editor had no affiliation with the creator of the OG article. They were a normal novice that didn't recognize the deleted article and recreated it. Since salting is used primarily for long term or problematic recreations, and this draft does not show that apart from the neutrality issue, salting should not be applied to the two titles. ToadetteEdit (talk) 10:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "The editor had no affiliation with the creator of the OG article" is a statement I would dispute, given the evidence that is mounting up at the ANI discussion. Daniel (talk) 10:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is apparently clear that there is possible socking per ANI. ToadetteEdit (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you share the evidence? IlEssere (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• (Note first that I am highly involved – I started the previous AfD discussion and both relevant ANI discussions.) While I am still not absolutely sure Errico Boukoura is IlEssere, I find the evidence strong enough to conclude that. Errico Boukoura was certainly not unproblematic (See the previous AfD and the ANI thread I started about them back in the time.), so recreating the deleted article (even in part) would almost certainly result in it being deleted and Errico Boukoura being banned. But it looks like they choose to trick us and create a new account. This only aggravates the situation. Therefore, delete, in the spirit (but not the letter) of WP:BMB. I also endorse S Marshall's arguments. As for salting, I am not strongly opposed, but watchlisting the pages doesn't leave the unwanted effects on legitimate articles on the topic. Janhrach (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  While I respect your concerns, it seems speculative to conclude that I am Errico Boukoura without concrete evidence. Assertions like these risk veering into conjecture, and maintaining an assumption of good faith is important, especially without definitive proof.

  If you feel the page has genuinely been improved and has a legitimate basis for inclusion, it seems worth asking why do you think deletion is the most constructive approach? IlEssere (talk) 04:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The evidence is pretty strong. Please avoid asking questions that have already been answered, including at ANI or in others' arguments. Janhrach (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - S Marshall is spot on. This is too conveient of a story on how this article just magically appeared after the previous version was deleted. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you please share your thoughts on the topic as well? Do you believe it meets the notability criteria to remain on Wikipedia?

  Please veiw the IMPORTANT LINKs regrading notability of the building above as well.

  You can review the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Improper_vanishing_and_restoration_of_a_deleted_article for more context on how the article was recreated. IlEssere (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The reference provided seems solid in supporting most of the claims made in the article, particularly the document that was shared in here from the Greek state that legally protects the building from demolition due to its cultural significance. Additionally, since most of the feedback or concerns raised are related to minor details, these can be easily addressed and corrected without affecting the overall substance of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:9281:ed10:9185:7724:f13c:799c (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note this editor has only contributed here and at the related ANI discussion.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 14:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They did not even sign their comment. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Does not actually appear to be a heritage listed building. Does not seem to appear on the Greek National Archive of Monuments map as far as I can see. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The whole first half seems to be unsupported original research. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article about a building has ZERO references about the building and I can find none. The first half of the article is completely unreferenced, even though it has exquisite detail about the architecture and history. Normally, I'd challenge and delete that section, but I'll ask the author IlEssere: where did you get that info? What references can you give us? (Greek is OK). The second half is about some activities that occurred in the building, but the building itself is a peripheral actor: the info may be useful for an article about those activities, but not an article about the building. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete passing mention in local news isn't enough to make a building encyclopedically notable, much of the article remains unsourced. Simonm223 (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: author has completely rewritten the article and removed the AfD template. I restored the template and checked a few of the refs (4). Two of the four failed verification. I don't have the time right now to comb through the rest of the article. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think he just restored an older revision, one before adding the completely unsourced sections. Janhrach (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Note: to the closing admin: I would like to ask you to consider taking an appropriate action against IlEssere and Errico Boukoura. There is a consensus, both here and at ANI, that they are the same person. The ANI thread lacks the attention of willing uninvolved admins; that is why I am making this request here. Janhrach (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Then report them to WP:SPI @Janhrach. I do not intend to take the action myself (I'm about to close this). Hey man im josh (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2024 (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.