Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Honey Club: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 23:21, 11 February 2023

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. (non-admin closure) NonvocalScream (talk) 04:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Honey Club

Not notable. Google news only turns up one relevant story (about the parent company, no less). Delete. Horselover Frost (talk) 04:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The criteria for notable is its appearance in DJ Magazine's poll. This criteria is also used in Stereo nightclub, so it appears to have some validity. Also, it does get a fair degree of coverage. This does appear to be a more significant nightclub than the average, and does appear in news sources [1] where it is called a "major seafront nightclub". SilkTork *^YES! 11:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the Argus is a local paper, and not really a reliable source. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 09:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - top-20 nightclub according to almost any magazine is notable. Vrefron (talk) 13:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poorly-sourced, reads like an advertisement, and does not appear to pass WP:COMPANY. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 16:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current state of the article does not mean the article topic is non-notable. They're separate issues. --Oakshade (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's the fact that it fails WP:COMPANY that makes it non-notable! -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 10:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It actually passes WP:COMPANY as it's the subject of reliable independent secondary sources, the core criteria of WP:COMPANY. The current state of the article is separate from the topic passing WP:COMPANY. --Oakshade (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? WP:COMPANY says that a company must have been the subject of "significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable... Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability" (my emphasis). I am just not seeing this kind of coverage for this club. An article in a local paper, and appearing in a few polls in magazines does not seem to be significant, non-trivial coverage to me. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 09:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really. "Trivial" is defined by WP:NOTABILITY as a "passing mention" or "directory listing". The coverage if this place is far beyond the scope of "passing mention", "directory listing" or "incidental." Once again a user seems to be under the false impression that local coverage is somehow banned as a "reliable source." Sorry, but in no where in WP:NOTABILITY or WP:COMPANY or WP:RELIABLESOURCES is there any stipulation that local coverage is not allowed. --Oakshade (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that local coverage is not allowed (trust me, I used enough in the John Brunt V.C. (public house) article - saying local coverage is not allowed would make me a hypocrite). It wasn't the fact it's a local paper, it's the fact that I don't believe the journalistic integrity to be that high. As for the "significant coverage". All I've seen people offer as sources for this article are polls in a couple of magazines. That's hardly in-dpeth coverage! If there truly was significant coverage of this establishment in reliable sources, surely they would have been added to the article as references by now? -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 08:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per the references cited above as it is consistently rated as one of the top clubs in the UK.--Oakshade (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep if at all. WEre if not for the DJ classification, I would have said "Delete as a NN nightclub". I wonder how widespread the data for the DJ classification really was. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2008 (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.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
+:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).  No further edits should be made to this page.''
+<!--Template:Afd top
+Note:  If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]].  When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
+The result was    '''keep'''. ([[Wikipedia:non-admin closure|non-admin closure]]) [[User:NonvocalScream|NonvocalScream]] ([[User talk:NonvocalScream|talk]]) 04:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 ===[[The Honey Club]]===
-{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|P}}
 :{{la|The Honey Club}} (<span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:The Honey Club|wpReason={{urlencode: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Honey Club]]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Honey Club|View AfD]])</includeonly><noinclude>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 September 2#{{anchorencode:The Honey Club}}|View log]])</noinclude>
 Not notable. Google news only turns up one relevant story (about the parent company, no less). '''Delete'''. [[User:Horselover Frost|Horselover Frost]] ([[User talk:Horselover Frost|talk]]) 04:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Keep''' - The criteria for notable is its appearance in [[DJ Magazine]]'s [http://www.djmag.com/index.php?op=story&story_op=display&story_id=206&status=Live&word=&page= poll]. This criteria is also used in [[Stereo nightclub]], so it appears to have some validity. Also, it does get a fair degree of coverage. This does appear to be a more significant nightclub than the average, and does appear in news sources [http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/3583327.Owners_of_seafront_nightclub_go_into_administration/] where it is called a "major seafront nightclub". <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<font face="Script MT" color="#1111AA" size="2">SilkTork</font>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|<sup>YES!</sup>]]</span> 11:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' - The criteria for notable is its appearance in [[DJ Magazine]]'s [http://www.djmag.com/index.php?op=story&story_op=display&story_id=206&status=Live&word=&page= poll]. This criteria is also used in [[Stereo nightclub]], so it appears to have some validity. Also, it does get a fair degree of coverage. This does appear to be a more significant nightclub than the average, and does appear in news sources [http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/3583327.Owners_of_seafront_nightclub_go_into_administration/] where it is called a "major seafront nightclub". <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="font-family:Script MT; color:#1111AA; font-size:small;">SilkTork</span>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|<sup>YES!</sup>]]</span> 11:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 **'''Comment''' - the Argus is a local paper, and not really a reliable source. --  [[User:JediLofty|JediLofty]] <sup>[[User talk:JediLofty|Talk to me]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/JediLofty|Follow me]]</sub> 09:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' - top-20 nightclub according to almost any magazine is notable. [[User:Vrefron|Vrefron]] ([[User talk:Vrefron|talk]]) 13:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
@@ Line 14: / Line 20: @@
 ::::*Really?  [[WP:COMPANY]] says that a company must have been the subject of ''"'''significant''' coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be '''reliable'''... '''Trivial or incidental coverage''' of a subject by secondary sources is '''not sufficient to establish notability'''"'' (my emphasis).  I am just not seeing this kind of coverage for this club.  An article in a local paper, and appearing in a few polls in magazines does not seem to be significant, non-trivial coverage to me. --  [[User:JediLofty|JediLofty]] <sup>[[User talk:JediLofty|Talk to me]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/JediLofty|Follow me]]</sub> 09:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 :::::*Really.  "Trivial" is defined by [[WP:NOTABILITY]] as a "passing mention" or "directory listing".  The coverage if this place is far beyond the scope of "passing mention", "directory listing" or "incidental."  Once again a user seems to be under the false impression that local coverage is somehow banned as a "reliable source."  Sorry, but in no where in [[WP:NOTABILITY]] or [[WP:COMPANY]] or [[WP:RS|WP:RELIABLESOURCES]] is there ''any'' stipulation that local coverage is not allowed. --[[User:Oakshade|Oakshade]] ([[User talk:Oakshade|talk]]) 18:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
+::::::*I'm not saying that local coverage is not allowed (trust me, I used enough in the [[John Brunt V.C. (public house)]] article - saying local coverage is not allowed would make me a hypocrite).  It wasn't the fact it's a local paper, it's the fact that I don't believe the journalistic integrity to be that high.  As for the "significant coverage".  All I've seen people offer as sources for this article are polls in a couple of magazines. That's hardly in-dpeth coverage!  If there truly was significant coverage of this establishment in reliable sources, surely they would have been added to the article as references by now? --  [[User:JediLofty|JediLofty]] <sup>[[User talk:JediLofty|Talk to me]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/JediLofty|Follow me]]</sub> 08:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' - Per the references cited above as it is consistently rated as one of the top clubs in the UK.--[[User:Oakshade|Oakshade]] ([[User talk:Oakshade|talk]]) 18:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
-*<small>'''Note''':  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/England|list of England-related deletion discussions]].  </small> <small>-- [[User:Fabrictramp|<font color="#960018" face="comic sans ms">Fabrictramp</font>]] | [[User talk:Fabrictramp|<font color="#960018" face="Papyrus">talk to me</font>]] 19:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)</small>
+*<small>'''Note''':  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/England|list of England-related deletion discussions]].  </small> <small>-- [[User:Fabrictramp|<span style="color:#960018;font-family:comic sans ms;">Fabrictramp</span>]] | [[User talk:Fabrictramp|<span style="color:#960018;font-family:Papyrus;">talk to me</span>]] 19:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)</small>
 *'''Very weak keep''' if at all.  WEre if not for the DJ classification, I would have said "Delete as a NN nightclub".  I wonder how widespread the data for the DJ classification really was.  [[User:Peterkingiron|Peterkingiron]] ([[User talk:Peterkingiron|talk]]) 16:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
+:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>