Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost Liberty Hotel
(Redirected from Wikipedia:VFD/LLH)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Gentgeen 17:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be trying to make a point, and belongs on the Logan Clements article. We have a little thing called NPOV here, and that means that mere proposals by society's blowhards dont become encyclopedic just because they make the news papers. In other words this should redirect and merge to the Clements article. The encyclopedic nature of the proposal, ATP, is the fact that it has some publicity, and the possiblity of future controversy. Unfortunately the entries on the Kelo v. New London, David Souter, and Logan Clements articles have been extremely POV and superficial, focusing not on the material itself, but the claims of a hence unknown California citizen.
<opinion>It would further seem that, judging by Clements ties to conservative organizations, that his "libertarian" affiliations are right libertarian, and that the choice of targeting Souter (instead of others) is politically motivated. It would seem that there is some coordinated consensus among sympathetic Wikipedians to introduce this material in a POV way. </opinion>
In any case, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and the naming of an article after a proposed "hotel" (note: someone even added a Category:hotels link!) was not done in good faith. Submitting to WP:RFC. -SV|t 3 July 2005 05:06 (UTC)
Rewrite edit
Update: I've rewritten Logan Clements so it can serve as a replacement for this article. Tualha 7 July 2005 21:54 (UTC)
- Hmm. Looking at the guide, it seems I shouldn't have done that. Well, it doesn't look like the original article will be deleted, so no harm done this time, I guess? Tualha 8 July 2005 13:04 (UTC)
Votes and discussion edit
- keep Gentgeen 3 July 2005 05:30 (UTC)
- keep - it is an important trial of the new supreme court jurisdiction --Keimzelle 3 July 2005 16:08 (UTC)
- Merge. I find the argument below about Rosa Parks compelling. She gets an article, the event doesn't. Likewise, until the hotel gets built, it should just be a subheading on various other pages.
Keep. While the hotel is disrupting Justice Souter's life to make a point, the article about it is not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, which is what the guideline you linked to is about. Dave (talk) July 4, 2005 15:02 (UTC)Dave (talk) July 7, 2005 18:27 (UTC) - Keep - I don't see your objection. This is a newsworthy item whether or not you have strong political views on the subject. The contributor is sticking to the facts of the matter. The conclusions that can be drawn from them are up to the reader. --Ali M
- keep - it is an important example of activism and protest, to delete it would be to relegate Wikipedia to the anal NPOV Nazis.
- For the record, Stevertigo has unilaterally moved the page to Logan Clements, despite consensus against the page move. Dave (talk) July 4, 2005 23:40 (UTC)
- I've restored it, as it was improperly deleted. Gentgeen 5 July 2005 00:37 (UTC)
- It was redirected, not "deleted." All the matter on that page was dumped into the Clements article. And Harry, please work on your NPOV writing. Its slowly coming along, though and I appreciate that. -SV|t 5 July 2005 09:06 (UTC)
- I didn't write this article. I never touched it. [1]. Please retract your comment. And I've shown myself plenty capable of writing edits criticizing libertarianism and Objectivism. Most of the criticism of libertarianism article was written by me, though it was originally on the Libertarianism page. See [2], the bottom half of [3], and a few dozen more edits like them if you need proof. Dave (talk) July 5, 2005 13:35 (UTC) Update: my claim that "I never touched it," while true at the time, is no longer accurate. I added a criticism section. I'm still hoping for a retraction.
- It was redirected, not "deleted." All the matter on that page was dumped into the Clements article. And Harry, please work on your NPOV writing. Its slowly coming along, though and I appreciate that. -SV|t 5 July 2005 09:06 (UTC)
- SV, please don't lie, especially when it is easy to prove otherwise. Or is there some other explination for the logs showing you deleting the page? Moving content to another page without proper credit to the authors and then deleting the page's history is a violation of the copyright rights of the author(s) and a violation of the terms of the GFDL. Gentgeen 6 July 2005 00:34 (UTC)
- I've restored it, as it was improperly deleted. Gentgeen 5 July 2005 00:37 (UTC)
- Keep --Rogerd July 5, 2005 01:55 (UTC)
- Keep. Though it may be a heavy-handed publicity stunt, those editors who chose to cover it as newsworthy made it newsworthy, and a fair subject for an article. Smerdis of Tlön 5 July 2005 04:08 (UTC)
- Huh?? Do I read you correctly? 'Because editors take an interest in it, and make an article, that alone is newsworthiness?' In anycase, you dont seem to understand the basic point, Smerdis: Most of the material is fine, and I dont object to it, but the title of the article is POV, its written in a POV style, and these effec the way its reffered to on other articles. All of it is POV. -SV|t 5 July 2005 09:06 (UTC)
- Keep. Novel form of political direct action I suppose. David | Talk 5 July 2005 10:28 (UTC)
- Delete. I assume the "editors" referred to by Smerdis of Tlön are the editors of newspapers and magazines who've chosen to run stories about this. I don't know how many have done so -- I'd never heard about this until I saw it in Wikipedia -- but, if we decide that Clements's publicity stunt has garnered enough publicity to merit any coverage in Wikipedia, it should be under Logan Clements, not an article about a nonexistent hotel. One fax to town officials plus one press release isn't enough for a nonexistent facility to achieve notability. There is no reason whatsoever to believe, as suggested by Keimzelle above, that this will be "an important trial of the new supreme court jurisdiction". Nothing in Kelo requires the town to approve this "proposal". If the town does approve it, reconsider, but until then, delete. JamesMLane 5 July 2005 10:44 (UTC)
- Keep. I get 50,000 Google hits on "Lost Liberty Hotel" (in quotes), so this seems to have achieved some "traction" to become notable, even if it is a silly stunt. It's certainly disrupting the legal system to make a point, but it's not disrupting Wikipedia. *Dan* July 6, 2005 02:21 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, certainly not for enabling a Libertarian publicity stunt like this. --Calton | Talk 6 July 2005 03:59 (UTC)
- We're not "enabling" it. Googling for "lost liberty hotel", with "souter" and "weare" added to eliminate false hits, finds over 20,000 pages. The same search on Google News finds 119 articles. The Washington Post carried it [4]. The story is out there, no matter what we do. Also, I don't think it's a mere "publicity stunt". Perhaps Clements will drop the matter in a few days, and then we could say, yes, it was just a stunt. But so far he appears to be serious, and trying to make a serious point and fuel some public debate on a public issue. Many people may disagree with him, but it's not trivial; it's news, it's newsworthy, and it's important enough to justify an article here. Tualha 6 July 2005 19:06 (UTC)
- He "appears to be serious"? Which is why he whipped up a business plan for a hotel in a day or two? That was pretty fast steppin' to research the current supply of hotel rooms in the area, the average occupancy rates, the construction costs of his facility, and what kind of structure and use would be allowed by local zoning on this particular site even if he were to get it condemned. He's "serious" about milking this for publicity while "seriously" hoping that no one calls his bluff. "OK, Mr. Clements, we like your idea. We'll condemn the land and make it available to you, in return for your promise to have a hotel up and running within a year. You have one week to post a $5 million performance bond to secure that promise." If he got that response from the town, he'd wet his pants. I don't see any criterion by which this could be considered a serious business proposal, as opposed to a publicity stunt. The question is whether an encyclopedia should be let itself be complicit in such publicity stunts. JamesMLane 6 July 2005 21:16 (UTC)
- I don't mean that he seriously expects the town of Weare to screw a Supreme Court justice. I mean that this action is a serious act of protest. When I say it's not a publicity stunt, I mean he's not just doing it for publicity, to get his name in the papers. He's doing it to make a point, and to make people think. Just as Gavin Newsom let thousands of same-sex couples get married in San Francisco, or Rosa Parks got arrested for civil disobedience. Not for the sake of publicity, but to make a point, to try to change a bad law. Which is of greater import, and therefore deserving of more notice, such as a (suitably NPOV) Wikipedia article. Having such an article doesn't make WP complicit in the protest; it merely chronicles it, as we chronicle thousands of other things that people might want to look up. Tualha 7 July 2005 02:34 (UTC)
- I have no information as to whether he's doing this to press his political beliefs or because he just loves seeing his name in the paper. I'll charitably assume the former. Nevertheless, his purity of motive doesn't elevate this to any importance beyond publicity stunt. Should we have a separate article on Michael Moore's offer to let Sinclair broadcast Fahrenheit 9/11 before the election, without charge? Moore at least was serious in the sense that he would have been delighted if his offer had been accepted. As for your examples, Gavin Newsom and Rosa Parks clearly deserve articles, and I have no objection to an article about the notably less notable Logan Clements. Parks's refusal to move to the back of the bus, although a more important historic event than Clements's fax, doesn't need a separate article. The solemnizing of 4,000 same-sex marriages was significant in itself and has precipitated significant litigation, so it's properly covered as part of Same-sex marriage in California -- though again, not in a completely separate article. JamesMLane 7 July 2005 16:49 (UTC)
- Well, there is an article on the Montgomery Bus Boycott. But that's something that already happened, and its significance is obvious in hindsight. You're right, it should just be a section in Logan Clements unless it turns out to have been historically important. Tualha 7 July 2005 20:26 (UTC)
- I have no information as to whether he's doing this to press his political beliefs or because he just loves seeing his name in the paper. I'll charitably assume the former. Nevertheless, his purity of motive doesn't elevate this to any importance beyond publicity stunt. Should we have a separate article on Michael Moore's offer to let Sinclair broadcast Fahrenheit 9/11 before the election, without charge? Moore at least was serious in the sense that he would have been delighted if his offer had been accepted. As for your examples, Gavin Newsom and Rosa Parks clearly deserve articles, and I have no objection to an article about the notably less notable Logan Clements. Parks's refusal to move to the back of the bus, although a more important historic event than Clements's fax, doesn't need a separate article. The solemnizing of 4,000 same-sex marriages was significant in itself and has precipitated significant litigation, so it's properly covered as part of Same-sex marriage in California -- though again, not in a completely separate article. JamesMLane 7 July 2005 16:49 (UTC)
- I don't mean that he seriously expects the town of Weare to screw a Supreme Court justice. I mean that this action is a serious act of protest. When I say it's not a publicity stunt, I mean he's not just doing it for publicity, to get his name in the papers. He's doing it to make a point, and to make people think. Just as Gavin Newsom let thousands of same-sex couples get married in San Francisco, or Rosa Parks got arrested for civil disobedience. Not for the sake of publicity, but to make a point, to try to change a bad law. Which is of greater import, and therefore deserving of more notice, such as a (suitably NPOV) Wikipedia article. Having such an article doesn't make WP complicit in the protest; it merely chronicles it, as we chronicle thousands of other things that people might want to look up. Tualha 7 July 2005 02:34 (UTC)
- He "appears to be serious"? Which is why he whipped up a business plan for a hotel in a day or two? That was pretty fast steppin' to research the current supply of hotel rooms in the area, the average occupancy rates, the construction costs of his facility, and what kind of structure and use would be allowed by local zoning on this particular site even if he were to get it condemned. He's "serious" about milking this for publicity while "seriously" hoping that no one calls his bluff. "OK, Mr. Clements, we like your idea. We'll condemn the land and make it available to you, in return for your promise to have a hotel up and running within a year. You have one week to post a $5 million performance bond to secure that promise." If he got that response from the town, he'd wet his pants. I don't see any criterion by which this could be considered a serious business proposal, as opposed to a publicity stunt. The question is whether an encyclopedia should be let itself be complicit in such publicity stunts. JamesMLane 6 July 2005 21:16 (UTC)
- We're not "enabling" it. Googling for "lost liberty hotel", with "souter" and "weare" added to eliminate false hits, finds over 20,000 pages. The same search on Google News finds 119 articles. The Washington Post carried it [4]. The story is out there, no matter what we do. Also, I don't think it's a mere "publicity stunt". Perhaps Clements will drop the matter in a few days, and then we could say, yes, it was just a stunt. But so far he appears to be serious, and trying to make a serious point and fuel some public debate on a public issue. Many people may disagree with him, but it's not trivial; it's news, it's newsworthy, and it's important enough to justify an article here. Tualha 6 July 2005 19:06 (UTC)
- Merge to Logan Clements, until the hotel actually gets beyond being a press release and a fax to the town. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 6 July 2005 15:23 (UTC)
- Merge to Logan Clements (and make Lost Liberty Hotel a redirect to that, so people can find it). While we should cover the topic, I'm forced to agree with JamesMLane's argument that it doesn't merit a separate article. Tualha 7 July 2005 20:26 (UTC)
Keep. The project has attracted a certain amount of publicity and news coverage. It doesn't appear to be frivolous - it looks to me like Clements intends to carry it as far as he can. It's related to an important court decision, an important public policy issue, and a Supreme Court justice. People will hear about it and want to look it up. Tualha 6 July 2005 18:49 (UTC) - Keep The article does need to be cleaned up some though. Wynler 7 July 2005 18:49 (UTC)
- I'll go with the Merge, with the Lost Liberty Hotel as a redirect Wynler 8 July 2005 13:26 (UTC)
- Merge to Logan Clements, see Rosa Parks argument above. --Benna 8 July 2005 00:42 (UTC)
- Merge to Logan Clements (and make Lost Liberty Hotel a redirect to that). This is just a press release. -Willmcw July 7, 2005 22:26 (UTC)
- Keep Deserving of own article at the moment. It's also heavily searched on the internet. --GrandCru 8 July 2005 00:07 (UTC)
- Keep This was widely reported in the media before making to wikipedia. So keep. But move some information from Logan Clements to this article and trim down the section in Logan Clements relating to the hotel. I do not support a complete merge. --DuKot 8 July 2005 04:42 (UTC)
- Merge to Logan Clements (and make Lost Liberty Hotel a redirect to that) as argued by Willmcw. It hasn't even come close to happening yet. Barneygumble 8 July 2005 13:20 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Widely reported and controversial. I recommend the same actions as DuKot. --Idont Havaname 8 July 2005 22:39 (UTC)
- Keep. Much of the merit of having Lost Liberty Hotel as its own article is that it prevents the entire text from being duplicated on Logan Clements, David Souter and Kelo v. New London. -- 9 July 2005 02:29 (UTC)
- Above vote was by User:Seth Ilys. --Idont Havaname 20:07, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Logan Clements. Publicity stunt doesn't necessarily warrant inclusion in Souter or Kelo articles, except maybe as a see also. This could be a separate article if something were to actually happen beyond the initial media flurry, or if Clements's biography was substantial enough to overwhelm this, but otherwise I think merging and redirecting is the way to go here. --Michael Snow 9 July 2005 02:48 (UTC)
- Merge to Logan Clements and perhaps include a sentence in Kelo v. New London. My guess is this "proposed hotel" is publicity stunt to make a point. Undelete if and when this actually takes a step toward reality. Mwalcoff 05:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep --24.107.227.12 00:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Why should a fringe politician's publicity-grabbing stunts deserve entries of their own? Judge Magney 23:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- User's first edit. Their only other edits are to David Souter and Hugo Black and appear quite POV. --Idont Havaname 00:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep --it's formal proposal submitted to the proper authorities
- Keep. It's informative and can be made POV neutal without that much change, and does provide a definition and background for an item which is clearly widespread. I see no particular reason to remove it, the wikipedia is not like a traditional encyclopedia where space is at a premium and only the most important content should be retained. This article has value imvho and should remain, altered slightly to be NPOV. --Tyr (unregistered but regular user)
- Keep Notable hotel. Perhaps the most useful thing an encyclopedia can document is the future. Klonimus 04:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously?
- Keep - Notable even if not built yet. Besides, it has 80,700 Google hits. --pile0nadestalk | contribs 03:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge advertising Septentrionalis 21:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep --TexasDex 06:08, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Time to count the votes? It's been eight days. Tualha 21:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. In the numerous news reports I have heard/read about in which the hotel was mentioned, Logan Clements' name never showed up. Newspapers, talk show hosts, and the like have only mentioned the hotel, not him. They do mention that residents of New London are banding together to try to get the hotel built on Souter's property, but Clements is never mentioned in most of the news reports. That's why I don't really agree with doing a merge at this point. --Idont Havaname 22:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Google hits update. "Lost Liberty Hotel" -> 97,800. "Lost Liberty Hotel" + Souter -> 53,400. "Lost Liberty Hotel" + "Logan Clements" -> 175. Clearly, those who are reporting on the hotel are not mentioning Logan Clements anywhere. (Sorry for the cross-posting, but I wanted those who haven't been reading Talk:Lost Liberty Hotel to see this.) --Idont Havaname 01:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that doesn't matter if Lost Liberty Hotel redirects to Logan Clements. --Benna 02:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- My point was that it should not redirect to Logan Clements, because it is obvious that, of the two, Lost Liberty Hotel is clearly more well-known across the internet. "Logan Clements" gets only 504 Google hits. We can't very well redirect Logan Clements to his hotel, since he's done other stuff too, but the hotel is definitely notable enough in the news to deserve its own article, as its presence on the internet greatly overpowers that of its founder. --Idont Havaname 03:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- In the first place, there is no "founder" of a nonexistent hotel. More to the point, the article on Clements is so short that it could readily accommodate everything we have about his life plus his press release about Kelo. The press release has many hits because it succeeded in its goal; it garnered a lot of publicity. (The increasingly superficial mass media would much rather cover some amusing little vignette like this one than present, say, a serious exposition of majority's and dissenters' arguments. That doesn't mean we have to emulate them.) Not every press release that gets widely picked up deserves its own article, though. In fact, virtually none of them do. A redirect will mean that any reader who enters "Lost Liberty Hotel" in the search engine will get the information s/he wants. JamesMLane 09:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- My point was that it should not redirect to Logan Clements, because it is obvious that, of the two, Lost Liberty Hotel is clearly more well-known across the internet. "Logan Clements" gets only 504 Google hits. We can't very well redirect Logan Clements to his hotel, since he's done other stuff too, but the hotel is definitely notable enough in the news to deserve its own article, as its presence on the internet greatly overpowers that of its founder. --Idont Havaname 03:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that doesn't matter if Lost Liberty Hotel redirects to Logan Clements. --Benna 02:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- keep - The article is written fairly objectively, stating the facts of the case. (Obviously one of the facts is that Clements appears to be running a publicity stunt). It should be listed as a current event. Dbinder 21:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I can't say that I have any better reasons for my vote than those listed above; they are sufficient. -Ich 06:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- VfD notice was removed from the article, and this VfD has been going on for 16 days (its log is not listed at WP:VfD anymore either. Time to close the nomination? --Idont Havaname 19:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Removal of the VfD notice from the article was improper while the VfD was still open. I've restored it. JamesMLane 10:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This is over. I count 18 keeps and 12 merge or deletes. No consensus has been established in significantly more than the specified time to delete this article. Gentgeen 17:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I get 14 to 13 among the votes that should be taken into account, but still there's obviously not a consensus to delete. JamesMLane 01:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]