Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bella's Gentlemen's Club


 * 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 redirect to List of brothels in Nevada. Any salvageable content may be merged from the page history. Vanamonde (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Bella's Gentlemen's Club

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not seeing any real notability, one blog and a source I am unable to check (but appears to be an overview of prostitution in Nevada, and thus not really about the subject). Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As detailed on the page’s talk page, this article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because the article has cited two significant secondary sources, Slate magazine and the Elko Daily Free Press, with details concerning the significance of the brother in a legal and historical context.—PaleheadedBrushfinch (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC) [sockpuppet, blocked]
 * Apart from the blog (which may well fail wp:rs) they all look like trivial mentions.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * See the Men’s Health interview as well. It’s a significant article. Bella’s does not deserve to be deleted. It’s also a part of the Sex Work Task Force.—PaleheadedBrushfinch (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC) [sockpuppet, blocked]
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - The ranch is a significant part of prostitution in Nevada, which has a unique place in American Law. I agree the article needs improvement but the subject meets notability guidelines so deletion is inappropriate. --John B123 (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per JohnB123. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete This brothel has 14 sources, all of dubious quality. The sources are either self-published (iUniverse book, Esther Hecht's Blog), unreliable (HappyCabbie's review, Thrillist), local press (Elko Daily Free Press, Las Vegas Courtesan), or include Bella's alongside every other brothel ("A Comprehensive Guide to Nevada Brothels"), not demonstrating it stands out from any other brothel in Nevada. Are all brothels in NV notable? There is only one decent national source, Slate, but it consists of a single picture inside the brothel and no mention of it in the article body - it's a passing mention not in-depth. There is no evidence this brothel stands out from any other brothel, it is not a notable brothel.  --  Green  C  13:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Been a long time when the article was created. 14 references but not even one is significantly establishing the notability. Raymond3023 (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete, without prejudice to recreation by User:John B123 or anyone else. --Doncram (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * [was "Keep"]. It is sourced and is notable as one of few legal brothels in the United States. --Doncram (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * First of all, there is no way this should be deleted outright, because it is obvious that it is a valid item in List of brothels in Nevada, and merger to that list-article is available as an alternative to deletion. We are obligated to seek wp:ATDs.
 * Second, the article has considerably more information than is comfortably merged into the list-article. It is valid for editors of list-articles to split out info to separate articles when the information becomes too much.  Here, there is adequate sourcing and the topic is valid as a standalone article, IMHO, too. --Doncram (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Why should every legal brothel in NV have an article? I'm not aware of a notability guideline for brothels that gives automatic inclusion. The sources for this brothel all problematic as explained above. If legal brothels are notable you shouldn't have trouble producing reliable sources that discuss it in-depth (per WP:GNG) -- that aren't local news, blogs and self-published books. -- Green  C  17:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The topic of legal brothels in Nevada is hugely notable, and, according to the list-article, there are currently just 22 of them; it is very feasible and reasonable to cover all of them in Wikipedia, at least in a list-article, like we do for many types of relatively rare things, e.g. we cover all historic covered bridges and all cobblestone houses. A picture is worth a thousand words; having a separate article allows for more treatment of a place, including presentation of a larger photo than a thumbnail in a list-article (and allows presentation of more photos, though only the one seems available at Commons for this place). --Doncram (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Update from "Keep" to "Delete". There really is not substantial value created in this article, and the fact of the creator being a sockpuppet/disruptor with obnoxious content included in the original creation brings me over the edge here.  I literally wrote the essay against using wp:TNT, but this is a case where blowing it up, wp:DENYing the disruption, similar to deleting copyvio, and allowing someone else to start over again some other day seems appropriate.  I will update wp:TNTTNT for this kind of exception. --Doncram (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - The article creator User:PaleheadedBrushfinch is perma-blocked as a notorious disruptive editor and sock. The article was created about a week ago. -- Green  C  17:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That is indeed true, but I can't see how that is relevant? The article should stand or fall on its own merit, not the reputation of its creator. --John B123 (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * (ec) Argh, disappointing. I see now that it was indeed just recently created, and that in its original form it was not appropriate for the encyclopedia. User:John B123 added infobox and categories and otherwise improved the article into more encyclopedic form (thanks), and GreenC (with mostly negative edits) and I (with just one minor edit) have both also now edited there. --Doncram (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Changed my !vote to "Delete", with apology to User:John B123, whose investment/improvements I do appreciate. Perhaps you could save a copy, and possibly recreate sometime later, especially if you do find better sourcing.  And drop many/most of the existing stuff which was indeed stretching it;  I was judging it over the margin but it was still marginal. --Doncram (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind works, however I'm dismayed that (from your edit summary) sockpuppetry has influenced your decision. --John B123 (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, well, from other experiences I am pretty soured on the effect of sockpuppets and anonymous editors in Wikipedia, who have no accountability and are trolling us, wasting our time one way or another. In the past I would have tried to salvage anything of value, and in general I am an "inclusionist", but nowadays I more strongly prefer to avoid seeming/being a dupe.  You're right, I am affected by sockpuppetry, as are we all here in this unnecessary discussion. --Doncram (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The emotive issue of sockpuppetry has been introduced into this article and has influenced people's thinking. As articles should be judged on their own merits, not on the wrongdoings of the creator, this discussion is now pointless. Any consensus reached would be a prime candidate for a WP:DELREVIEW. --John B123 (talk) 21:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * comment - Whilst I fully support WP's notability requirements and can't see how the criteria of assessing notability could be improved while still keeping it a relatively simple test, the 'one size fits all' approach does throw up anomalies (as one size solutions often do). Specifically in this case, clients of Nevada tend to fall into two types (in this context). Some go to them almost for bragging rights, eg if Dennis Hof's Love Ranch comes up in conversation they can say "I've been there". Others want to visit a prostitute without anybody knowing and discretion is the most important requirement. The Love ranch and similar establishment court publicity and go out of their way to stage publicity stunts. Others, such as Bella's shy away from being in the public eye as their clientele are after discretion. This makes it easy to establish notability for the love ranch, but difficult to do the same for Bella's. However in regard to the importance they play in prostitution in Nevada there is very little to choose between them, both are nowhere near as important as say the Mustang Ranch, which although meets the notability requirement, on a scale of notability judged by WP standards is a distant second to the Love ranch. --John B123 (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge / redirect to Prostitution in Nevada. While I commend for expanding the article, the sources seem still to be too much about the Nevada sex industry generally and towards the sensationalist / tabloid end. I think a paragraph in the main article (with appropriate sources) should suffice, and may be a sufficient compromise to everyone upthread. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support merge.Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.