Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top of the Town (brothel)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Star  Mississippi  20:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Top of the Town (brothel)

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

This fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. There are six sources on the page, which include papers of record, so these are WP:RS but per WP:PRIMARYNEWS, the articles cited are primary sources, and primary sources do not count towards notability. What has not been established is any reason why this brothel is notable and the subject of significant secondary coverage, and not just another brothel. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Australia. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Articles like and  are more than just news and the latter mentions a review in a Japanese magazine Themis.  is about that review. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these. Childs (1991) writes about the first birthday of legality. This falls squarely in primary source territory. It mentions a new promotions manager, and that must raise some questions about independence. But yes, definitely a primary source. Barrowclough (1991) writes an editorial 8 days after the newspaper ran an article mentioning the new promotions manager. Again, there might be questions about independence here, but the piece remains a primary source. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Do you have a link for (Ormonde, 1990) so I can take a look at that one?
 * The real question is still: what makes this brothel actually notable? What is the encyclopaedic article on the subject meant to be about? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I think Sirfurboy🏄 is putting undue emphasis on the primary news issue, WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. Its written about (and notable) because it's a large, long-standing and well-known place in a highly prominent position on one of Melbourne's main streets, which is also pretty unusual. Boneymau (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * PRIMARYNOTBAD is saying that primary sources can be useful in an article when used appropriately. The point here is not that we cannot use a primary source, but that they do not count towards demonstrating notability. The relevant guideline is WP:SIRS. This says: Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nomination, which I find convincing. बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The nomination is advocating delete. LibStar (talk) 06:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You are right, I have changed my vote to reflect what I mean. बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Looking for further input regarding whether the sources meet SIGCOV so a consensus can form either way. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete most of the sources are not indepth coverage of the brothel and fail WP:SIGCOV eg stories on sex workers. The first sentence is refbombed with 5 sources. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 10:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete: Agree with LibStar's assessment. Lacks WP:SIGCOV. TarnishedPathtalk 09:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.