Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Blackpool


 * 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 no consensus. Mango juice talk 17:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Gay Blackpool

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is essentially nothing more than a business directory in violation of WP:NOT and is not notable per WP:N. Prod was rejected. Mh29255 (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - looks more like a version of Yellow Pages! Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I think WP:NOT does apply because point 5 has a get-out clause at the end: Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y" or "Restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. See also ... This class of establishment is not listed in the yellow pages in the same way that Chinese Restaurants are. OTOH, the page subject promises more than just a list of places to visit. Ros0709 (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - the article as it stands now is definitely more directory like than I'd prefer, but there are a fair amount of sources for the idea that Blackpool is sort of a gay-haven for tourists. This article could be redone with that in mind, getting rid of the directory stuff. matt91486 (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - first, WP:NOT#DIR. Second, anything left can be merged in to Blackpool - it doesn't belong in a separate article. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment A paragraph summary is already at Blackpool. Benjiboi 00:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article as is seems somewhat dreadful although well-intended. By re-purposing and directing the article to focus on LGBT in the greater Blackpool area it could be quite encyclopedic. Showing the history of some of the establishments. For those non-LGBT editors please note that any business accepting of LGBT people often becomes a meeting place and defacto community center. Article should be improved through regular editing and I suggest including more history and means of communication to help illustrate the development and changing nature of the various LGBT communities. A map showing where Blackpool is would also be helpful. Benjiboi 00:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Question: Do we have any other "Gay (place)" articles? Gay San Francisco, Gay Amsterdam, Gay Paris? I realize that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a reason for deletion - I'm just really wary of starting a travelog section of wikipedia. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree and think a move to LGBT communities in Blackpool or similar would make sense. Benjiboi 01:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete no evidence ofgnotability as a group. This is in fact a true instance of DIRECTORY. DGG (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Move to LGBT community of Blackpool. There is already LGBT community of Brighton and Hove and perhaps the Gay Blackpool article should be under a similar heading and also read less like a "Yellow Pages" advert? ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 00:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Currently it's just a club directory, with no indication that it could be anything more than that. Anything not notable enough to belong in the Blackpool article we can do without. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - there is definitely notability Article clearly needs cleaning up to read less like a directory with more of the history of Blackpool as a gay resort. Possibly to be moved to LGBT community of Blackpool. -- Beloved  Freak  21:25, 28 January 2008 (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.