Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay bathhouses in the United Kingdom


 * 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. –MuZemike 23:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Gay bathhouses in the United Kingdom

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article is the product of the merger of the articles on Pleasuredrome and Chariots Shoreditch, which I completed in the wake of the closure of Articles for deletion/Pleasuredrome. I subsequently wrote on the article's talk page, "I encourage editors in this topic area (because I am certainly not one of them!) to make this article more about gay bathhouses in the U.K. in general, and less about the two specific bathhouses whose articles have been merged into this one." However, upon further reflection, I believe that this article runs afoul of WP:NOTTRAVEL ("Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in...travelogues, and the like"), and that due to the nature of the article, this problem is unlikely to be fixed. Encyclopedic material on the broader topic belongs in Gay bathhouses. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - The result of Articles for deletion/Pleasuredrome was to merge the individual articles into this one, not delete the content. WP:NOTRAVEL is meant for articles of topics that don't have significant coverage as these topics do. --Oakshade (talk) 03:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The nominal topic does not seem to be notable and the format seems too directory-like with addresses, lists of facilities, &c. If individual establishments are notable then they should be covered in their own articles.  Merging not-notable content together does not make it notable and tends to promote improper synthesis. Warden (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, good coverage in multiple secondary reliable sources. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources seem mostly to be junk. For example, a Wikipedia article is cited as a source.  The book Gay Bathhouses and Public Health Policy is cited when this is about North America, not the UK.  And then there's a lot of gossipy stuff about footballers which doesn't amount to coverage of the topic.  For an example of an article about about a genuine UK institution, see Molly house. Warden (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree: the result of Articles for deletion/Pleasuredrome was to merge the individual articles into this one, not delete the content.85.18.98.160 (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2011 (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.