Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Plumm


 * 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. Waggers (talk) 09:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The Plumm

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete. Honestly, I'm on the fence about this. It's supposedly owned by a dozen celebrities, but what makes this more notable then the hundreds of other clubs owned by celebs and muscians? I checked WP:CORP under Non-commercial organizations and didn't see anything that would make this place meet those guidelines. Endless Dan 14:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's been the in-depth subject of reliable sources like USA Today and the International Herald Tribune , easily passing the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY.  The Non-commercial organizations section of WP:CORP doesn't seem to apply to this business and besides, it passes the core criteria of WP:CORP.  It doesn't seem to exist anymore and perhaps info on its closing can be added. --Oakshade (talk) 02:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)  Also is the subject of New York Magazine  and gets significant mention in the International Herald Tribune . --Oakshade (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The subject of the IHT piece? You have to be joking: it is merely mentioned, not the subject.  The same is true of the USA today piece; while USA TODAY is definitely a reliable source, that particular piece does not come anywhere close to the level of "significant coverage" that WP:N requires.  UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean the USA Today article entitled The Plumm is the new place in NYC is not significant coverage about The Plumm? WP:N states very clearly:
 * "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.
 * "Trivial" means "passing mention" or a "directory listing". Claiming that the USA Today article is a "passing mention" or "directory listing" is contradictory to reality.  --Oakshade (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And I now see this has received significant coverage from the New York Times. --Oakshade (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the unsourced sentence, and what's left? Yes, the sources say that the club exists, and that some club owner owns it, and that a fight broke out: sounds like a directory (which is all the sources support), not a great (or even good) encyclopedia article. Here's a question: will the club get any coverage when it closes? If the answer is no, methinks its non-notable.
 * I also note that the writer of the usatoday piece wrote a total of four pices in her illustrious career at the paper (see here), and that the piece never appeared in print. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I restored most of what you deleted because it IS referenced. The owners and it being a popular New York City club amongst celebrities is additional information to "the club exists."  Crystral Ball speculation as to what coverage the club will receive if and when it closes is completely irrelevant to the secondary coverage by reliable sources it has already received.  I've never seen a Wikipedia user attack a reliable source like USA Today because they feel the reporter didn't write enough articles for the source.  Even if there were no reporters listed, USA Today is still a very reliable source.  By the way, reporter Kathy Ehrich Dowd wrote at least 13 stories for USA Today.  Care to retract your WP:BLP violation attack on the journalist or shall I remove it from your post myself? --Oakshade (talk) 04:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The google search repeats the same article multiple times (note how many start with "Can't afford to hit every music festival . . .") I trust USA today's count of their own stories, and I don't see how counting stories is an "attack" (or how WP:BLP applies). And I never claimed it was not reliable, only that it did not provide coverage "in detail" in this particular case (nor does the "listings" section of New York magazine). UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. That reporter could've wrote one story in her career and that doesn't change the fact USA Today is a reliable source.  It has nothing to do with anything.  And sorry, but a multi-paragraph article covering the establishment is in detail doesn't mean it's not in detail just because a Wikipedia user says so. A listing is just that, a single appearance on a list, not an in-depth story.  This is in addition to the New York Times and  New York Magazine non-listing stories on this establishment. --Oakshade (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And I just noticed that New York Times reporter Melena Ryzik, who wrote the in-depth New York Times piece on The Plumm, has reported hundreds of pieces for the New York Times alone. Based on your bizarre "reporter needs to have written more than 4 pieces at one newspaper for that newspaper to be reliable" criteria, the New York Times piece is extremely reliable and significant coverage of this establishment. --Oakshade (talk) 22:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you consistently mis-state my position? I NEVER said ANY of the sources were unreliable.  Fortunately, reliablity is not the only thing that the guideline requires.  UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 08:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to have enough significant coverage, from reliable sources, to establish notability. Silverfish (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2008 (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.