Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of traditional gentlemen's clubs in the United States


 * 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 keep all (non-admin closure). StAnselm (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because WP:NOTDIR (Wikipedia is not a directory). Also: WP:Reliable (Wikipedia must have reliable, neutral sources not affiliated with the subject of the article.) Also: WP:Synthesis. (To paraphrase, Wikipedia must not put together information in a way that other people haven't.) Note: List of Australia's gentlemen's clubs has already been deleted. See Articles for deletion/List of Australia's gentlemen's clubs.


 * Keep. This list meets the requirements at WP:LIST. The list should be trimmed, certainly. List entries that are problematic should be tagged or deleted. NOTDIR does not help in getting the article deleted because the concept of this list is cohesive—all the entries are tied together by being American gentlemen's clubs. The entries are not "loosely associated", as described at NOTDIR. Binksternet (talk) 02:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. This AfD seems to be an outgrowth of some continuing personal beef GeorgeLouis has with calling gentlemen's clubs by that term (see here and here ). These articles have existed for many years. Originally, the lists were placed in the main gentlemen's club article, and then several editors had the good sense to move them to their own lists. In all three, a great number of entries (virtually all the entries in the London article) have their own articles. As Binksternet says, the concept of these lists are cohesive and fit all the requirements of WP:LIST. There is no valid reason these longstanding articles should be deleted. Any problematic entries can be tagged and/or discussed and deleted.Clubwiki (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, per Binksternet and Clubwiki.Wikophile (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - meets WP:LIST and many of the clubs meet WP:GNG, so the list is an easy way to find the clubs. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In regard to my friend AssociateAffiliate's comment, very few of the sources for this article meet the WP:GNG: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent. Regarding my friend Binksternet's comment about trimming, tagging or deleting, please count the number of "official links" there are at List_of_traditional_gentlemen%27s_clubs_in_the_United_States and let us know just how to handle all those. These lists fall so far outside the pale that they should just be deleted (and perhaps started over in another format). Yours in Wikidom, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Was going to say keep, but trim everything that is sourced to a Primary Source (i.e. the official site). Looking at the articles that would pretty much blank the whole page. So keep but remove any that are not blue linked. If someone wants to add one they should either provide a secondary source or a link to an article to demonstrate notability. A list of unnotable Gentleman clubs is hardly in the best interests in the encyclopaedia (I am sure there will be a policy somewhere about notability in lists - WP:NOTDIR hints at this anyway). AIR corn (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I say keep it. I have found it useful when seeking information on clubs in cities I am visiting on business or pleasure travel. David Trumbull (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - Although I cannot appreciate all of the references to Wikipedia structure, I do recognize the importance of structure to any database. Admittedly, this list may not be in the appropriate place, but I would beg for it being included somewhere. I use Wikipedia for EVERYTHING!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wimberly (talk • contribs) 18:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep for reasons others have mentioned. A most useful list for the social historian as well as those with a more direct interest in the subject matter. Tillander  02:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I should have added that I favour a strong keep for the Sri Lanka and India lists also. Hugely useful for the social historian. I hope I'm not out-of-line for suggesting the possibility that the proposal that these lists be deleted may reflect an (irrelevant) animus towards their subject matter; a dislike or disapproval of such clubs would NOT be a reason not to have lists of them. Tillander  02:07, 9 November 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.