Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Roboto Project (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Sources provided by Cunard seem to have shifted consensus in favor of keeping in light of significant coverage. Go Phightins! 11:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Roboto Project

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

topic only has local notability, doesn't warrant independent article Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 05:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The venue is notable. [1][2][3]. Based on the references, this is not just some random venue, but have strong significance to punk and DIY culture in the general area. This satisfies WP:GNG in my opinion. SunDawn (talk) 06:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this was kept easily a few years ago and I expect it to be kept again (especially since the nomination isn't strong), but I'm not sure WP:CORPDEPTH is satisfied, even looking at the old AfD. I really don't care which way this one goes at this point but looked at this and wanted to make those points. Also agree with all of the tags currently in the article (WP:PROMO, WP:NORG) which weren't taken care of after the last AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 18:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local project with only local references. DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Varner, Stewart (2007). "Youth claiming space: The case of Pittsburgh's Mr. Roboto project". In Hodkinson, Paul; Deicke, Wolfgang (eds.). Youth Cultures: Scenes, Subcultures and Tribes. New York: Routledge. pp. 161–174. ISBN 978-0-415-37612-9. Retrieved 2021-03-09.
  The book provides 14 pages of coverage about the Mr. Roboto Project. Stewart Varner, the author of the chapter about the Mr. Roboto Project, is "a PhD candidate in the Institute of the Liberal Arts at Emory University".
  The book notes in the conclusion, "Against a backdrop of a culture that is increasingly only possible through corporate sponsorship, the Mr. Roboto Project can easily be seen as a positive and empowering organization. Because youth culture in America is typically only of interest to the adult world when it can be commodified, packaged and sold back to the youth, the cooperative represents a kind of safe space for the people who use it. ... However, Roboto stands apart from these communities. It is a welcoming and much needed refuge for those who identify with it, but is alienating or illegible—if not invisible—to those who don't. This story is not specific to The Mr. Roboto Project. ..."
2. Hannon, Sharon M. (2010). Punks: A Guide to an American Subculture. Santa Barbara, California: Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 36–37. ISBN 978-0-313-36456-3. Retrieved 2021-03-09.
  The book notes that the Mr. Roberto Project is in Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania. It was created in the late 1990s since there were "few options in the Pittsburgh area for punk, hardcore, and independent/alternative shows". It was established as a cooperative in an "empty storefront". On November 12, 1999, the group held the inaugural show. Roboto showcases punk and hardcore acts, performance art, and art shows. Its members "pay minimal yearly dues". It is inspired by the Gilman Street Project.
3. Makagon, Daniel (2015). Hurley, Taylor; Biel, Joe (eds.). Underground: The Subterranean Culture of DIY Punk Shows. Portland: Microcosm Publishing. p. 205. ISBN 978-1-62106-518-0. Retrieved 2021-03-09.
  The book notes, "Roboto is one of the success stories in the U.S., functioning as a show space, providing a basement location for bands to practice, and serving as a space for members to start a bike co-op (which has since moved to its own space)."
4. Mervis, Scott (2012-01-12). "Mr. Roboto Project's wild first decade recalled in new book". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Archived from the original on 2021-03-09. Retrieved 2021-03-09.
5. Machosky, Michael (2005-01-14). "Mr. Roboto Project brings bands home". Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Archived from the original on 2021-03-09. Retrieved 2021-03-09.
6. Fitzpatrick, Dan (2003-02-13). "New Pittsburgh: Business isn't a bad word for creator of punk music oasis Mr. Roboto". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Archived from the original on 2021-03-09. Retrieved 2021-03-09.
7. "Mr. Roboto Project changes its venue". Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. 2001-09-09. Archived from the original on 2021-03-09. Retrieved 2021-03-09.
8. Majors, Dan (2012-03-30). "What to do tonight: The Mr. Roboto Project". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Archived from the original on 2021-03-09. Retrieved 2021-03-09.
9. Fuchs, Derek (2001-04-27). "Underground producers boosting local music scene". Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Archived from the original on 2021-03-09. Retrieved 2021-03-09.
10. Snowden, Jordan (2019-01-09). "Venue Guide: Mr. Roboto Project". Pittsburgh City Paper. p. 17. Retrieved 2021-03-09 – via Issuu.
11. Jentzen, Aaron (2011-04-14). "The Mr. Roboto Project Moves to Penn Avenue". Pittsburgh City Paper. Archived from the original on 2015-09-10. Retrieved 2021-03-09.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Mr. Roboto Project to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Roboto Project participants: Beeblebrox (talk · contribs), Eastmain (talk · contribs), NukeThePukes (talk · contribs), Hobit (talk · contribs), Arxiloxos (talk · contribs), Coolabahapple (talk · contribs), and James500 (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 09:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or clean-up asap, tagged since 2013, problematic issues unaddressed, riddled with WP:OR, zero use of citations, if so notable the article should reflect this by now. Acousmana (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and DGG. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm open to arguments about why the first 3 sources provided by Cunard aren't acceptable, but they seem fine--the first in particular. So meets WP:N and thus our inclusion guidelines. The first source *appears* to be stelar. It's from the UK and goes into great detail. If the author of the chapter has a significant COI, that could change things. I can't find anything about them. Note, per above, I was pinged Hobit (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, note to closer: If this gets kept, ping me and I'll try to get the better sources integrated into the article and expand it a bit. Hobit (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (thanks Cunard for the ping:)), dont see anything that changes my !vote from previous afd, reading above, some editors appear to be upset/annoyed that article has not been improved/cleaned up but this is not a reason to bring it back to afd, if need be, should have been discussed on talkpage. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Cunrad's additional sources, there is even a book about this, which I added to the content just now. Lesliechin1 (talk) 05:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per all above and espescially additional sources provided by Cunard. Grailcombs (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2021 (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.