Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pleasuredrome
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 merge. It seems merging as suggested would be the sensible solution. DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pleasuredrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Mentions in travel guides and lifestyle magazines are not proof of notability (compare restaurants and bars). William Avery (talk) 13:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- Please note that this is one of the articles directly related to the charges of improper use of citations in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ash. Editors may want to check that the sources actually contain the cited information. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- sounds like a NN commercial establishment, catering to a particular clientele. WP is not a directory. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Include The article is at stub, it needs work and research. There are two other similar venues included in wikipedia. I would prefer to see this topic on wikipedia, it is very informative, however I question as to whether the other two need seperate articles, I would think all three would be best merged into one article about Gay Saunas in the UK, also touching on the subject of their legality, thus avoiding any potential bias toward a business and allowing the article to provide information about what to expect at such an establishment and what they are with some of the history included in there. They are an LGBT topic of interest. This venues notability is amongst other things its promotion of safe sex, not on the agenda at the other two venues.
Other two articles:
(Rovington (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete Only trivial coverage found. Most of the sources in the article don't even mention Pleasuredrome. Epbr123 (talk) 22:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge
Pleasuredrome article has sufficient citations and in equal number to the other two articles. These articles could all be merged into one.
(Rovington (talk) 00:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge templates have been addded to the three articles, with a view to merging all three into one article with a new title on the subject matter of Gay & Bi Saunas in UK, this should also eliminate any advertising elements within these articles --Rovington (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.