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 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(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
  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. ···
  Join WP Japan! 18:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment: I expect you didn't examine those references. The
  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
    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
        Join WP Japan! 05:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • @
          Join WP Japan! 19:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
          ]