Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buttoned down disco


 * 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 - relisting was due to the recent addition of the web sources on which only one persona had commented at the time. Now it is clear there is consensus that even those sources are not enough.--Konst.ableTalk 01:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Buttoned down disco
Unnotable clubnight held in London. It may have been running for several years but isn't revolutionary in any way, nor is it any more famous than a lot of other London nights. Seems to be an advert set up by the promoter perhaps? Karinski 13:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Matthuxtable 13:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Delete per nom.  Emeraude 13:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. MER-C 13:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete just another club night. The entire article is OR and I can't see it ever being properly verified. The closest thing to mainstream media coverage I could find by Google was this. Hardly the basis for an article other than confirming that it exists. -- I sl a y So lo mo n  |  t a l k  16:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Edit I entered this article as I felt Buttoned Down Disco was an notable concept in London clubbing, since I do not know of any other invite only, travelling nightclubs (?) However, I do not want it to end up looking like an advert. Perhaps you could help me edit it? The copy is from the site's history page. Also, if you need to see mainstream press, there is a press page. I feel the whole area of Nightclubs could be improved though, I've started a discussion on that here. Ignore the Buttoned Down Disco reference, it was only there as an illustration. Also please feel free to comment on the other pages I added/edited; Infinity Club, The Libertines & Clinton. I'm happy to help with the Nightclub category if needed. RachelTurner 22:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Edit Hey Rachel, sorry i'm not meaning to sound like a bitch here but aren't you the promoters girlfriend? I think if someone unbiased were to put an entry in then fine, but as it is it's a little dodgy. I agree perhaps nightlife should be bigger, but it should only be clubs that have made a real, lasting contribution. If you check the Pacha page you'll see that it's smaller than the Buttoned Down Disco page! User:Halliwell92
 * Edit Hi Halliwell, Yes, I am and sorry, I really don't want this entry to be dodgy! I was just really surprised the nightclub area wasn't bigger and better structured. I tried to follow the layout for an article, incidentally, there doesn't seem to be an infobox template for clubnights, and it is weird how the other articles are so short(?) I'm totally happy for this particular entry to edited down/deleted if everyone argees. However, I think there still needs to be a distinction between venues and clubnights. As Buttoned Down Disco is not comparable to Pacha, it would be more comparable to Escape from Samsara. I'm totally happy to help with the structuring of this category if needed (regardless of whether this entry is deleted or not!) RachelTurner 12:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Actually on further investigation, this could be a 'keep' according to WP:MUSIC, since Buttoned Down Disco has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...). i.e. TimeOut, The Times, Metro, Evening Standard and The Guardian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RachelTurner (talk • contribs) 21:11, 2006 October 19
 * Would appreciate references. Thanks. — Encephalon 08:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:V, WP:RS. — Encephalon 08:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * References
 * The Guardian [] []
 * TimeOut (Various) [] []
 * The Evening Standard (Various) [] [] []
 * flavorpill [] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.82.29 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 2006 October 22
 * Keep I think that the guardian, standard and time out are pretty reliable sources. Agree that the text needs to be cut and toned down to take out the ad-speak, but this is a unique clubnight with an interesting history, too (see http://www.deadmansboots.co.uk - this story also appeared in time out a while back) Hopsyturvy 09:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,


 * Delete nn, per nom. Eusebeus 13:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't feel this one is notable enough to have its own article -- lucasbfr talk 14:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Before voting to keep, one might reasonably expect the references to be cited in the article, not just shown here.Edison 14:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Per Edison's comment; references should be verified and incorporated into the article, along with the tone worked out. Afterwards, if it still seems non-notable, it should be brought back here. - CobaltBlueTony 16:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete no significant review or write-up; just the kind of clubbing chat/info you could find on any club night. Nothing to suggest exception or even notability. And article feels and reads as ad-promo-spam. Marcus22 19:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete No claim of encyclopedic notability. Likely spam/marketing abuse of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a nightlife guide, and simply citing event previews/reviews from nightlife guides in Time Out, Evening Standard, Guardian etc. are not acceptable sources for proving encyclopedic notability. The background story for the club (yes I looked through the deadmanboots site or whatever its called) doesn't seem to be extraordinary especially as London is a major nightlife capital. I can find multiple published reviews for the little totally ordinary restaurant around the corner, but this doesn't make it encyclopedically notable. Bwithh 00:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete —  NN, even if it manages to stay kinda neutral, it is probably a placed advert. source it and we'll talk. JoeSmack Talk (p-review!) 01:18, 26 October 2006 (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.