Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eight Club (London)

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. After two relists and no indication of further sourcing, I think there is a reasonable consensus to delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eight Club (London)

[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)

I believe the topic of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Standard Google searches didn't show any non-trivial or independent news coverage. The only nominally substantial coverage was in allinlondon.co.uk (doesn't seem like a reliable source) but that article is promotional and was duplicated on the company's LinkedIn page. The only other significant news mention I saw was a single paragraph on this Insider list. Zetana (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zetana (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Zetana (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found some references in Campaign (magazine), a periodical for the advertising industry that also covers high-end venues. I think the coverage from various sources that now appears in the article is sufficiently in-depth and independent to show notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eastmain: Regarding the Campaign sources, did you find any others besides the ones currently in the article? I don't feel that the Campaign articles or the other ones on the article are sufficiently in-depth to satisfy GNG, as most of them only have a paragraph or two on Eight Club. For the ones that are longer (I see two, The Kolberg Partnership for allinlondon.co.uk and Paul Caffell for fluidfoundation.com), the allinlondon.co.uk is a promotional piece; I think the Caffell piece is the only coverage to be an RIS although I'm not sure how reliable Fluid London is (and the way it's written is also veering towards promotionalism). Zetana (talk) 07:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think the Fluid Foundation source is OK, but none of the others are acceptable; they are either promotional (The allinlondon piece looks like a press release disguised as journalism, revealed by the penultimate paragraph) or simply a small part of large compilations of brief reviews (basically lists). I cannot find any more in-depth coverage. This isn't one of those venerable gentleman's clubs, it was established fairly recently and its exclusive nature may mean it's still WP:TOOSOON for multiple instances of significant coverage to be written about it. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: “standard Google search”, as if that was authoritative—I have no position on the AfD. —¿philoserf? (talk) 12:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I said that to indicate to other editors what kind of searches I made in evaluating my decision to list this article at AfD. I make no claim that it is authoritative, obviously, anyone who thinks that misunderstands what Google is for. Something I forgot to mention in my initial comment was that I also tried a couple of newspaper engine searches in addition to Google's newspapers archive, but didn't see anything other than a couple of brief mentions of "obit says X local person frequented Eight Club". The ones I have access to are primarily in the US, though, so it was difficult to properly evaluate that aspect (I think the engines primarily indexed more prominent British outlets which introduces its own search bias). However, given that Eight Club started in 2009, I would have expected at least a few decent online sources if I thought it was significant. Zetana (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I had encountered a few notable subjects recently that have good sources located in the physical world rather than the Google indexed world. I guess I was responding to that. Some editors have behaved as if that which doesn’t have a weblink does not exist. My bad. I will cover my trigger. —¿philoserf? (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No harm done, I have occasionally seen those kinds of rationales as I browse and it is equally frustrating to me!! Zetana (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete. The article and most sources have a distinctly promotional tone; even the most in-depth one from Campaign reads like a thinly veiled press release. Wikipedia is not for advertising. And as noted, the sourcying is very thin. Sandstein 20:46, 20 October 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.