Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blacks (Private members 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 Delete as an article created by a banned user, with no substantive contributions from other editors. (See CSD G5.) ''Note: All but one of the supports for "keep" are based on the subject being notable, but that is irrelevant, since lack of notability is not the reason given for deletion. The other "keep" is based on a mistaken view of policy. Consequently, none of the "keeps" would have had much weight anyway. The editor who uses the pseudonym'' "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Blacks (Private members club)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article created by a sock puppet LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * keep . So what? Non-abusive article. AFAIK, only banned users are mercilessly scrubbed off wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, appears notable. WorldNewsKid (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Appears notable, it's supper club has been reviewed, and so on.  The article does seem promotional and should be edited.  In this diff i just took out some claims that were not supported by the sources given.  There are other corrections to make, like how to spell "ammenities", but that is for editing and perhaps Talk page discussion.  The place seems notable, at least the current club in recent decades.  I am not sure of its claim of association with the 1700's era club, but again that is also for the Talk page;  the current club is notable. -- do  ncr  am  23:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 'keep - seems notable to me Bali88 (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Template:db-g5 applies to "a page created by a banned or blocked user in violation of his or her ban or block, with no substantial edits by others."  It can also apply if the editors who made the otherwise substantive edits agree.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete This is paid public relations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.107.99 (talk) 08:26, 7 April 2014 (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.