Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balcony nightclub


 * 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. JForget 00:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Balcony nightclub

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

New notable sources are slow in being added, after a NPP CSD was traded for an AfD to give the editor time to provide additional sources. There is a reference to an additional Lonely Planet article, but it is not available online for easy verification. Since the nightclub is no longer in business, I'm not sure this one source will be sufficient. Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 12:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No hyperlink to a source for "easy verification" is not grounds to delete an article. Many sources are from books, periodicals and government sources that were published long before Al Gore invented the internet.  Besides, the Lonely Planet piece is available online.  As a matter of fact, the nominator linked to at above in this AfD in the "books" link.--Oakshade (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * To earn the right to lecture me, you should take a stand with a "thumbs up" or "thumbs down." We're supposed to assume good faith, which in this case, might mean checking the edit history of the article to see what led to this discussion. Believe it or not, I'm completely aware of the value of books, since I'm actually a book editor. The Lonely Planet piece, as displayed online, is a paid travel listing, as are virtually all of the sources provided. I was attempting to give the editor the benefit of the doubt, by explaining that I was willing to concede that there might be a full article about this nightclub in Lonely Planet, which apparently there is not. These discussions would be a lot smoother, and more people might participate, if every venture onto these boards did not end up with a half-cocked lecture, mostly irrelevant to the article at hand.-- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 03:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * After that lecture, my comment stands. Don't know how I feel about this article so no "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" at the moment.  That's perfectly allowed.  --Oakshade (talk) 04:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's better if people don't vote to keep but only question your nomination. I think you should be given a chance to formulate your arguments more clearly, since this nightclub is a marginal case. I for one remain unconvinced that it is notable. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Completely incorrect. This is what the guidelines for AfD say, exactly: "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments. When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy."
 * Nothing in the AfD guidelines mentions lectures to nominators. It asks us to make recommendations, sustained by arguments. It also asks how each individual article meets or doesn't meet a policy. It mentions nowhere that the AfD is a chance for editors to sit on the sidelines and take pot shots at other editors who have actually contributed to the artice in question. In regards to more fully explaining my rationale, that would be more easily accomplished by simply asking: "Would you mind providng more information for the nomination?"-- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 05:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We're not voting yet, and we aren't lecturing. I'm asking for more information while at the same time informing other readers of this AfD what is available in terms of sourcing. What we don't want is people voting keep because of these weak-ass sources that were not discounted by the nominator. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Show me where you "asked" for anything? Anyway, if you have any more "feedback" for me, how about you leave it on my talk page. If you have any questions for me, feel free to post them here. Otherwise, I "vote" to let this debate procede, with someone actually weighing in on the notability. -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 05:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There are news sources and other book sources. Being closed is irrelevant. AfD is not to push for the addition of sources, that is better left to tags like onesource. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * After investigating the "sources"... the nom still stands. The "sources" are still all paid entries to travel magazines, and none of them can be counted on to confer notability to a closed nightclub, whose main claim to fame seems to have been serving six shots of alcohol to a barfly in front of security. There are more than one "Balcony nightclubs" in the world, and checking the sources, reveals that the "Balcony nightclub" for which most of the non-superficial sources have an entry, refer to a nightclub in Wellington for drag queens in the 70's, not this particular "Balcony nightclub," which was opened in the 90s. There are no entries of famous musical acts which performed, no indication that this was anything more than a local hangout. None of the "famous people" mentioned... seem to actually be all that famous. One athlete appears to have gotten into a barfight once, with some local media attention . Is this enough to confer notability? I am still not convinced. -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 02:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources, and exactly what they say about the nightclub:
 * 1): "There’s other great night spots too – Baja, a lounge bar, the Calypso Tavern and The Balcony nightclub at the Coolangatta hotel."


 * 2) : "The Balcony nightclub at the hotel is a party hotspot, as is the two-storey Calypso Tavern on Griffith Street, and lounge bar Baja."
 * 3) (Lonely Planet)  "...and the Balcony nightclub attracts some of the biggest acts in the music industry."


 * Delete Lacks the kind of in-depth references needed to establish notability per WP:N. Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Unlikely to have received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. You would anticipate promotional material either in print or online articles, but these are not independent of the subject. Bleakcomb (talk) 13:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, none of the sources rise to the level of notability. This club was rather ordinary. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, just another local bar/club that is popular with the locals and not notable. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.