Talk:Big Sister (brothel)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 August 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

[edit] Sources

The article could do with more direct citations of the apparent press coverage of this brothel. Kusma (討論) 12:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advertisement?

I would like to address the recently expressed concern that the article "reads like an advertisement" and need to know which sentences/paragraphs require rewriting. Thanks, AxelBoldt 23:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self-published source

Regarding the concern that the link to the "Big Sister Press Room" represents an inadmissable self-published source: the page is nothing but a collection of links to numerous readable/viewable media reports about the brothel, and the point of the reference was to support the statement that the brothel has been the subject of numerous media reports. Would it be preferable to replicate some of the press room links directly in the References section? AxelBoldt 23:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

See the comment up top. Anyway, if the page is nothing but a collection of links, then it's not much a source, is it? If it's a subject of so much media coverage, then it shouldn't be difficult to build an article based on citations from verifiable sources.

Now, if the source is only there to support the claim that the brothel has been the subject of numerous media reports, then that means the rest of the article amounts to original research or using a self-published source. Either way, none of the information is verified.

And that's the reason I've added the advertising tag as well. Right now, it reads like a press release because it seems all of the information has come from the website itself. I don't know enough about the subject to say how it should be changed or what information needs to be added, but as it is, we have no indication of what makes this brothel/site notable (notoriety? controversy?). Ytny 20:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with everything you've just said. It's sole claim to "notability" appears to be that it's a brothel whose business activities are recorded for and published on the internet. I argued in the AfD that the 'multiple independent reviews' were trivial and not worthy of the designation. Valrith 21:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we have three issues:

• why is it notable: I don't think there are any reports of controversy surrounding the business. It's the world's first brothel which offers free service, subsidized by paying internet viewers. Because of this unique business model, it has been the subject of international news coverage. Should that be emphasized more, or is it sufficiently clear from the current version of the article?
• is it original research or is the information taken from the website: everything in this article is taken from independent news articles and TV reports (that are reproduced on the website). Clearly the sources of the individual statements should be better labeled; I'll work on that. The article contains several details that are only to be found in those news articles and not on the rest of the website or any press release: ownership, cost of creation, compensation of the women, contract details, date of opening etc.
• self-published source: to support the claim that the business has been the subject of numerous international news articles, is it admissable to point to a page on the business's site that contains reproductions of those news articles?

Thanks, AxelBoldt 00:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)