Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palm Cabaret and Bar


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Palm Cabaret and Bar

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Reads like an advertisement, and is not notable Uwsi (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per GNG (disclaimer: page creator). I've expanded the stub to note some of the performers and shows hosted by the venue. These are just from the past couple years. The venue had existed for much longer, and there's a lot more to add in terms of performance history. Uwsi, as a very new editor, you might want to know that WP:BEFORE suggests you should search for coverage prior to nominating an article for deletion. I vote to keep and expand this entry about a notable LGBT establishment. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep – doesn't read like an advertisement (and if it did, deletion is not cleanup), and the sources, e.g. Frommer's, local news, other books/magazines, seem likely to show notability. If the nominator or someone else would like to provide some explanation of why the sources are inadequate (more than just "and is not notable"), I'd be glad to reconsider, but they seem to be more-or-less reliable and to discuss the establishment in-depth. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2022 (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.