Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Sister (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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Kusma (討論) 12:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big Sister (brothel)

Advert for brothel Mattisse(talk) 21:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The article describes a brothel; a mere description may occasionally also have an advertising effect, but that is hard to avoid and at any rate not a valid reason for deletion. The brothel is notable because of its novel business model, reflected by the fact that it was covered by some 40 European newspapers and TV stations (linked on the page). AxelBoldt 21:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is not encyclopedic. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please provide a pointer to a guideline defining the term "encyclopedic" so that your claim can be independently verified. At least the German Wikipedia apparently considers the topic encyclopedic. AxelBoldt 15:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Come off it. The comment was entirely legitimate. This page is about opinions, and if his opinion differed from yours that is tough. Piccadilly 23:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I would hope this page is about arguments, not opinions, and name calling is not an argument. AxelBoldt 17:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Reply To be included in Wikipedia, you must show that a company meets WP:CORP and a product meets WP:N and WP:V. Also, no original research is allowed per WP:OR. Mattisse(talk) 15:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Reply Precisely which of those do you claim is violated? I already established WP:CORP point 1 and WP:V above. AxelBoldt 19:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Reply - How? Your say-so is not enough. You have to have multiple references from third-party, verifiable, unbiased sources linked to the article. Link some articles from those 40 reputable newspapers or TV webpages you mention to the article and then it will be fine. See Fun Home for an example of what a well-referenced article looks like. Mattisse(talk) 20:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This is the description of a unique concept and needs to stay. -- Michael Janich 16:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, User:Koavf; uniqueness is not a criterion, and article fails to establish notability per WP:WEB, WP:CORP. Valrith 20:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:CORP does not require that the article establish notability, only that the described company be notable. Notability of the company is established beyond question by some 40 media reports in German, English, French, Russian, Czech and Italian, including reports by the biggest German newspaper (Bild), the biggest Swiss newspaper (Blick) and the three biggest German TV stations (ARD, RTL, SAT1). These involve original reporting and are not mere rehashings of press releases ([1], also listed under external links). I'll add a mention of this to the article. AxelBoldt 17:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The links 'listed under external links' point exclusively to urls within nightclublive.net, most of which contain images of articles and not actual articles. However, the criterion specifically states "multiple non-trivial published works" and I would argue that these are all trivial. Valrith 17:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Per WP:CORP 'The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.' this includes 'This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.' Vegaswikian 04:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
      • "I would argue that these are all trivial" -- well, then let's hear your argument: why are they all trivial? WP:CORP gives as the only example of trivial articles "newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories." AxelBoldt 07:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This certainly serves an advertising purpose, and as a business it is much too insignificant. Piccadilly 23:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I see the true significance of this concept in that it represents a novel convergence of the real world and the internet, of prostitution and pornography. I'm sure this will show up in Nevada before long. AxelBoldt 06:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as notable because of the unique concept. If the article sounds too much like an advert, then fix it. PseudoAnon 08:27, 16 August 2006 (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.