Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gay bathhouse regulars


 * 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. ( X! ·  talk )  · @122  · 01:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

List of gay bathhouse regulars

 * NOTE:article name has been changed to ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD)  (View log)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  —Teahot (talk) 22:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - no objective standard exists as to what constitutes a "regular" at a bath house. How many visits over what time frame make one a "regular"? The article itself points to the problems in trying to objectively quantify someone as a "regular" with its inclusion of Justin Fashanu as a "regular" when the source supporting his inclusion explicitly describes him as a "newcomer". Although most of those currently included are dead, there is also serious potential for WP:BLP issues since labeling someone as a "regular" at a facility for which a primary purpose is to engage in anonymous sex with multiple partners is quite likely defamatory. Otto4711 (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note, for the case of Justin Fashanu quoted above, a reliable source has been added showing that he was going to gay bathhouses before his visit to Chariots gay bathhouse on the night of his death. Further discussion should be on the article talk page.—Teahot (talk) 07:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - This list was put up for deletion on the basis of "no objective inclusion standard as to what constitutes a "regular", possible WP:BLP concerns". Responding to the two parts of this challenge:
 * 1) With regard to BLP concerns, this list is carefully sourced with good quality published reliable sources. The list has already existed on the Gay bathhouse page for more than a year without any source or name on the list being challenged. The list was recently split from the main page. If there are any particular BLP concerns (presumably only for one person still living; this means that the concern can only relate to the inclusion of Scott Capurro where the quote from Time Out seems a perfectly reliable source) it would be helpful if they could be elucidated for a more detailed reply as it is not possible to counter unspecified concerns.
 * 2) For the term regular, I was going by the standard dictionary use of the word, the OED defines this as "doing the same thing often or at uniform intervals". The list could be renamed List of people who have often been to gay bathhouses or List of gay bathhouse patrons but, honestly, the word "regular" seems a perfectly good one to use. If there is a logical reason to use a different word then I would be happy to move the page. You will note that wp:List states "If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so", consequently if the word regular needs explanation then this can easily be added to the current explanation of inclusion criteria in the lead text, though again the current text appears sufficient.—Teahot (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As the wording of the AFD reason has changed since the last attempt, I note that Fashanu has been picked as a key example. If this is the issue then I suggest that this reference is discussed on the talk page, or Fashanu removed from the list until that discussion occurs. Deleting the entire article seems a heavy handed way of dealing with "potential" BLP issues for a dead person.—Teahot (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, I didn't cite a dead person to support the assertion of potential BLP concerns. In fact, I explicitly stated that "most of those currently included are dead". The length of time that some of this information existed in another article is not relevant to this discussion. And again, how many visits, or at what interval, do visits to a bath house have to be made to qualify someone as a "regular"? What is the objective standard used to determine that exactly? Otto4711 (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, by "most" you mean all except one, and that one is backed up with a good quality reliable source? And are you discounting the idea that the lead text can be clarified due to the guidance at List not being applicable for some reason?—Teahot (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete due to WP:BLP concerns. The phrase "regular" is also very subjective and the list will never be complete. DJ 20:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please explain which, if any entries are BLP issues. -- Banj e  b oi   02:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete based on WP:BLP and WP:N concerns, as well as DJ's point that this list is and always will be incomplete. Powers T 20:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All lists are generally incomplete, we have dynamic list for that very reason. -- Banj e  b oi   02:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as partial as I am to a spot of cottaging, I'm not sure I see the encyclopedic value of this article. Also, WP:N and WP:BLP. Crafty (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete: While I agree that WP:BLP doesn't, of course, apply to dead people, this list isn't named "List of dead gay bathhouse regulars" and obviously won't stay to zero live ones. Beyond that, while I dislike reaching for the cruft argument, this is as crufty a list as I can imagine still existing; no doubt you could also source a List of sitcom actors who wear string ties in church, but that scarcely makes it encyclopedic.  And despite the citation of the OED, this will remain a desperately subjective notion which smacks more of prurient interest than scholarship.    RGTraynor  20:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The cruft argument seems weak if your argument is based on precedent; surely this list is more notable (purely on the basis of general public interest) than List of bow tie wearers or List of knitters in literature both of which seem to be considered encyclopaedic?—Teahot (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply: And if I had launched an argument based on precedent, a rebuttal based on one might have made sense. That being said, no, I don't think that this list is more notable than the examples you give; upon what basis do you think this is notable or informative, or that any pertinent information couldn't be merged back into the main article with a single sentence: "Historical patrons of gay bathhouses include Oscar Wilde, Rudolf Nureyev ..."  That much might be illustrative to those with a burning desire to know the names of celebrities who hung out in gay bathhouses.  It doesn't support a standalone article.    RGTraynor  04:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I must have misunderstood your justification of "cruft" being based on the example of "List of sitcom actors who wear string ties in church" being un-encyclopaedic and so I responded with close counter-examples. I am pleased to see you have shifted your argument to a form of Merge rather than just Strong Delete, perhaps you could amend your vote accordingly? By the way, to clarify your example text; I do not believe there are any reliable sources claiming that Oscar Wilde went to gay bathhouses, though there is evidence he enjoyed the company of rent boys, witness statements at his trial provide a perfectly reliable source.—Teahot (talk) 05:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, or merge & redirect to Gay bathhouse (which is where it was to begin with, wasn't it?). Exploding Boy (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually this list is still embedded in Gay bathhouse. If the rationale for deletion is unspecified BLP concerns then the same arguments should apply to the names and sourced material there. Those who propose deletion here should note that the following RFC raised for this exact same list, Talk:Gay bathhouse, concluded that the list was encyclopaedic. I guess the AFD process rather ignores pre-existing RFCs that may have been conducted? —Teahot (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed my comment accordingly.  Exploding Boy (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete for the definitional reasons given above. Drmies (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Per Teahot; also, the title problem has been fixed, thus invalidating the major argument for deletion. I don't get the WP:BLP objection either. It's sourced. Zazaban (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment the page move/title change doesn't alter a thing viz deletion. It's still crufty and not encyclopedic. Check out RGTraynor's comments. Crafty (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * With regard to being unencyclopaedic, perhaps you could point out why the conclusion of Talk:Gay bathhouse was the wrong consensus to come to?—Teahot (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite aside from that much of the commentary in that RFC was, well, yours, of course you're aware that consensus on Wikipedia does not bind future discussions; we don't do stare decisis. That being said, a number of people are answering you with their comments in this AfD.    RGTraynor  04:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep/merge. This was a break-out list from the main and itself has sourcing. I see reason to merge back to main but certainly not to delete. -- Banj e  b oi   23:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this article. It is redundant given that this information is copied from Gay bathhouse. As per my comments on that article's talk page, this information is a useful part of that page. It elucidates that article's subject matter, gives an idea of real life user's opinions on bathhouses over different eras. I do not see what function it serves when removed from the article which gives it context and meaning. The original section should remain in the gay bathhouse article. Format (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That would seem a reason to merge/redirect as it's not the information that is wrong or unencyclopedic, just misplaced. -- Banj e  b oi   00:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes the content is fine. Technically there is no need to merge as the information is currently duplicated in gay bathhouse. We do not need to return it there, it is already there. But for the sake of collating opinions, I guess mine should be keep/merge redirect. Format (talk) 04:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BLP issues and the impossibility of precise definition  Chzz  ►  01:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The WP:BLP argument is compelling. And defining a "regular" is impossible. Tim Song (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Still delete. A section in Gay bathhouse carries exactly the same material. And just because the page says it's got to be well-sourced does not mean that people would not add unsourced stuff that offends WP:BLP. Also per the well-reasoned arguments of RGTraynor.Tim Song (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So a rationale for deletion is that someone may edit it in the future and then fail to meet a guideline? You may find the guidance of NOTCENSORED helpful as it covers this exact issue. I'm sorry but I can't help but get the impression that the real issue here is some editors are struggling to accept the gay sexual nature of the topic rather than factual compliance with BLP, Lists or RS. In comparison to List of political scandals in the United Kingdom (which in over 3 years has never been challenged) this list is far more reliably sourced, in compliance with guidelines and far less controversial and yet is put up for deletion within days of being created and with no attempt to follow up on the pre-existing discussion on the article talk page.—Teahot (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I will say for the record that I have no problem with gay people whatsoever. None. I'm persuaded that WP:BLP concerns are at a minimum and does not justify deletion. But a big problem is that the list, by those criteria, would never be approaching completion - or even near. Not only because there will be likely new notable attendees every day, but also because the strict criteria necessary to avoid WP:BLP also made the list grossly underinclusive such that it would be of very limited usefulness to a person who wants to find a list of notable attendees. If the list is for illustration purposes - and it indeed does not claim completeness - it should be in the article it is intended to illustrate, not as a standalone page. Now, if there are 90 instead of 9, even though the list would still be underinclusive, I can understand the need to have a standalone article. But since there's only 9, I would normally vote merge, but as it is already there, delete. Tim Song (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarification - Please be clear I am not accusing anyone here of having a problem with gay people, this is different from accepting "the gay sexual nature of the topic". Someone who supports gay rights and lifestyles may not support the open existence or discussion about organizations where public gay sex may occur. On this page the terms "prurient" and "awful" have been used to describe the prospect of this well sourced list being added to Wikipedia which may lead you to conclude that the sexual nature of the topic is at issue rather than the unemotional issue of it being a stand-alone list or not. If I gave the impression of making accusations otherwise I unreservedly apologise.—Teahot (migrating to Ash) (talk) 11:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll add that I consider homosexuality and heterosexuality equal in all respects save for the gender of the participants. The primary reason I'm sticking with my delete vote is that the list should not be a standalone article, for the reasons stated. Its perpetual incompleteness renders it of limited use. Nothing to do with the fact that we are talking about "organizations where public gay sex may occur". Just like something like List of Chinese characters that are pronounced an1 is of little use except perhaps to illustrate that many different characters in Chinese are pronounced the same, and so should not be a standalone article but rather included in the article about Chinese, this list should have been included in the article it is intended to illustrate. I would not oppose making this into a redirect, however. Tim Song (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * keep with the name change, the remaining non-trivial coverage can clearly be sourced to reliable sources. with reliable sources, WP:BLP is not an issue.-- The Red Pen of Doom  02:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Forum's comment that changed my opinion on the gay bathhouse page: "Attendance at a bathhouse was, many would say is contentious. It was possibly illegal too depending on date and region. Who attended bathhouses, which ones, and under what legal situation, illuminates the subject of bathhouses. The knitting and bonsai examples are not good examples because neither of those things are contentious, illegal, or particularly notable or uncommon. A famous person attending an illegal and stigmatised venue is notable." -- The Red Pen of Doom  04:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I protest a perma-nooboid nomination whose only reasons have been completely removed by only a change of article title. Irresponsible and negligent; a waste of WP resources. Anarchangel (talk) 05:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry if this is a little off-topic, but what's a perma-nooboid? Zazaban (talk) 06:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:BLP for some of the living ones and vague inclusion criteria for the list. This isn't an issue of gay pride or homophobia. This is simply a list with vague criteria. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be genuinely helpful if you could explain the BLP failure in the article, even if just for one case. Which living person and which sources are inadequate would be useful. I would be happy to take it up on the article talk page.—Teahot (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note; Capurro has now been removed from the list whilst the citations are under discussion on the talk page. Consequently, the number living people on the list is now zero, with obvious implications for current issues with BLP.—Teahot (talk) 06:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment (proposal) I am increasingly concerned at how discussion on this page is changing the original opinions contributed. This AFD was raised without following the guidance of WP:BEFORE, in particular: "Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD.", and "Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator or notifying an associated wikiproject, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD."
 * This AFD was raised for a second time after the first was removed (not by me BTW) and discussion on the talk page recommended. Had this advice been followed then this same discussion would have been conducted in a less confrontational environment.
 * I would like to propose we follow the guidance of DEL "Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an administrator, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum." and move this discussion to the article talk page where, in my opinion, it should have started.—Teahot (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Response: Mm, but the problem with that is that the Delete proponents are, by and large, not saying "We think there are problems with the way this article is handling information, and it can be salvaged." It's much more "We disagree that this should be a standalone article at all, and it's inherently unsalvageable."  That's an appropriate subject for AfD.    RGTraynor  02:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, if I take as true "inherently unsalvageable", how can this list be unsalvageable and yet exactly the same list that happens to be embedded in Gay bathhouse is perfectly okay? Surely the same rules apply and the embedded list should be deleted for exactly the same reasons?—Ash (previously Teahot) (talk) 07:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Asked and answered above; while a sentence such as I've already given makes for a factoid acceptable in a larger article, it doesn't make for a standalone article - and I emphasize "article" as you're attempting to substitute "list" for my own wording. Again, obviously you don't agree, but that's for the closing admin to sort out; you really don't need to try to rebut every statement anyone makes.    RGTraynor  18:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Awful list concept. Prurient, perpetually incomplete, unlikely to add value to the encyclopedia. That's not even beginning to consider privacy concerns if anybody living gets added to such a list. Ray  Talk 20:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not encyclopedic, invites BLP problems.  JN 466  21:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and partition anything useful into the specific articles. List criteria are nebulous, and there's simply no way to keep it from being an Attractive Nuisance for BLP issues. Jclemens (talk) 02:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that "likely to be a target of vandalism" not one of the criteria for article deletion. -- The Red Pen of Doom  04:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please also note that Jclemens has linked to an album cover, there is no such beast as WP:attractive nuisance as there is no such guideline.—Teahot (migrating to Ash) (talk) 09:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "attractive nuisance" is a legal term that, even if it does not have a wikipedia article, is used appropriately here. although you are correct in that such a legal concept is not in place within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but WP:NOTCENSORED is. -- The Red Pen of Doom  12:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Not even close to encyclopedic, screams BLP problems, per User:Jayen466. Bearian (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Notable examples from the past should be kept in the main article. I accept the reasoning of the creators of this list and their efforts to avoid BLP problems.  But the list will attract (even good faith) edits that are (at best) far from encyclopedic: the fact that Mr. X attends gay bath houses may be suitable material for a certain sort of newspaper, but not for an encyclopedia. --Simon Speed (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Get Real. This is not what WP is all about.  Stellarkid (talk) 03:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If this fluff about fiction castles is somehow considered "encyclopedic"/"what Wikipedia is about" without the benefit of any third party sources, reliably sourced, real world acts with real social implications certainly are. -- The Red Pen of Doom  03:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems a trivial intersection, grouping men together by an extremely minor activity. Why no "List of people that go to the pub"?  People notable for going to bathhouses should be in the main article, notable people who just happen to go to them do not need listing. Yob  Mod  14:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My interpretation of Lists is that there is no requirement that would mean a list of people has to be restricted to those famous "for" the topic. As you are using examples, a close match to the one you have given here is List of teetotalers where the criteria is only that the notable person has been teetotal for some part of their lives, not that they are famous "for" being teetotal. As this list is okay, then List of drinkers actually seems rational but actually both list concepts are far more trivial than this list up for deletion. BTW this list is not an "intersection" as there are no notable women who have ever been documented as going to gay bathhouses and if there were, then a simple name change of this list would solve the issue rather than deletion.—Teahot (migrating to Ash) (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:SAL says "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future). For example, lists of atheists doesn't include every individual with a Wikipedia article who happens to be an atheist, because not all of them are notable for their atheism." So that's where it's stated that lists of people should be restricted to those famous for the topic.  And the "intersection" has nothing to do with gender; it's an intersection between "famous people" and "gay bathhouse regulars".
 * Thank you for explaining that. I have clarified the lead text in order to address the matter of notability of the individual for going to gay bathhouses and make the criteria and rationale explicit rather than implied. Please note (as stated at the top of this AFD) the list name has already been changed in order to remove the word "famous", there is an open discussion on the talk page with regard to the term "notable" as a further name change is likely better to comply with the guidance of WP:Lists.—Teahot (migrating to Ash) (talk) 05:46, 29 July 2009 (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.