Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Honey Club
Appearance
- The Honey Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
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)
- 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)
- Comment - the Argus is a local paper, and not really a reliable source. -- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 09:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - top-20 nightclub according to almost any magazine is notable. Vrefron (talk) 13:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete poorly-sourced, reads like an advertisement, and does not appear to pass WP:COMPANY. -- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 16:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- I agree. It's the fact that it fails WP:COMPANY that makes it non-notable! -- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 10:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 meFollow me 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:RELIABLESOURCES is there any stipulation that local coverage is not allowed. --Oakshade (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- 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)