Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seattle Eagle


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Seattle Eagle

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of notability to pass WP:NCORP. WP:Run-of-the-mill gay bar with no distinguishing characteristics. Routine coverage and business listings in the local alt-weekly does not make it notable. Reywas92Talk 23:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG. User:Reywas92 has nominated several articles for deletion at once, so now I have to scramble to find sources for multiple subjects, but I believe there's sufficient coverage for an article. There are now 11 references in the article, and I've not even searched newspaper archives, local or otherwise. Sure, more sources are needed to help flesh out this article, but I believe there's a story to be told here about Seattle's oldest leather bar and longest operating gay bar. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 06:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Gay bars don't need "distinguishing characteristics" to be notable enough for Wikipedia articles, they just need enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG. I'll grant that Another Believer did once undertake a misguided project of trying to start a single-sourced stub about every single gay bar that got blurbed in one isolated listicle — but they clearly learned from that, because they're trying much harder to source gay bars properly now and I've never been able to identify any serious problems with their work on gay bars since then. Bearcat (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: I agree with the rationale of the nominator. This establishment does not pass WP:GNG. Carajou (talk) 03:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Some of the sources in the article now have quite short references to this bar, but there are probably enough to meet WP:GNG. I found a few that aren't yet included in the article, too, from the Seattle Weekly, , though they might be considered local. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Look, many bars are going to get news coverage due to the fact that famous musicians frequent them. However, if that criteria alone as enough for notability criteria then a bar in every town would have a Wikipedia article. From looking at the article, it does references but... Eliko007 (talk) 02:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG. The article should be improved though. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2018 (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.