Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/123 Pleasant Street

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. — CharlotteWebb 03:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 123 Pleasant Street

Doesn't seem to be a notable nightclub. Notability isn't established by who gives gigs there. No evidence of notability on Google. Contested prod. MER-C 02:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - The nightclub may be notable as a place of local interest. The information in the article is verifiable and no other major problems exist. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 04:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, as per above - the notability is weak, but it is there I think. Lankiveil 11:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
• Keep Agree with Nick. Looks like it passes WP:LOCAL. Important venue in locality. Involved in a notable criminal event. Everything verifiable. --Oakshade 16:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• comment There is nothing notable about the woman's disappearance. People go missing everyday. It may be notable for that local area, but it is not notable outside of that local area. Also, there are no articles about the club outside of a mention that this missing woman owned it. No verifiability means no article. It was said that the article could be made verifiable (or was verifiable), but there are no sources cited nor found about the club. We can't keep everything on the grounds that there might be sources. No one is base their arguements on anything besides "oh, it's notable and verifiable". How is it notable? How is the notability verifiable? Again, a missing woman does not make everything connected to her notable. None of the arguements are based on policy, nor do they provide refuting evidence against the policies that are listed. For an uncited article to be able to survive on the principle that it is verifiable, just not verified, requires some showing that sources are reasonably likely to exist and can be resonably easily found by a person who is not from the area and knows nothing about the owner. The keep arguements say "It's notable" but are not providing proof of this with any sources. You are ignored the issue of verifiablility which is NOT optional or negotiable. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 18:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, per this. Agrees with my assessment, basically 100%. Some pictures would be nice, though. Haemo 06:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep — Looks like there is notability, and WP:LOCAL applies. ST47Talk 18:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Per above comments. --Sir James Paul 21:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• DELETE Notability doesn't matter if there are not Multiple, Independent, Reliable, Reputable, Third-Party, Published Sources. WP:V and WP:RS trump any WP:NOTABILITY claims, and I don't see any sources here. Unverified claims of notability. The owner disappearing does not make the club notable (A local bar owner disappeared a few years ago and is still missing but that is does not make him or the bar notable. Many people go missing every day from every social standing.) Notability is a guideline but WP:V is a POLICY that no article can ignore. Deletion Guidelines for administrators quite clearly states:

Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable' and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus.

The only sources provided are links to the club's webpage, a homestead.com page which has been disabled, a personal angelfire.com webpage listing the owner as a missing person (which is a direct copy of one of the external links from doenetwork.us) and finally a blog story. Sorry but this is a clear delete without reputable, reliable sources. Anything on the club by Rolling Stone? A national newspaper? A national radio or TV show?

As for WP:LOCAL it states:

If enough reliable and verifiable information exists about the subject to write a full and comprehensive article about it, it may make sense for the subject to have its own article. If some source material is available, but is insufficient for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the subject under the article for its parent locality. If no source material, or only directory-type information (location, function, name, address) can be provided, the subject may not merit mention yet at all.

As it is, There are are not enough Reliable and Verifiable information sources to validate an article. Again, WP:LOCAL is a guideline and does NOT trump WP:V. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 20:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - So CBGB's it's not. but it's the best we have. I'll add a WTRF story to the Marsh Ferber angle. if it'll appease you. -DarkAudit 23:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• comment no, it won't because the problem is the story is about Marsh Ferber, not the club. We need multiple, independent coverages on the club, not the owner. What we COULD do is merge the club article with the owner's article. (edit: No, after review, the owner doesn't pass notability either.) You can't ignore the fact that there are no news stories on the club itself. What I am saying is, again, WP:V can not be ignored. Where are the articles on the club and only the club? The "best you have" is, I'm sorry to say, not good enough to pass one of wikipedia's main pillars. The news story doesn't even mention the club. It mentions an address where the car was found but nothing on the club. All the articles found are about the owner disappearing. It's a local story about a missing woman. Nothing notable about her. Nothing notable about the club. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 18:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• comment kinda seems backwards. Most of the 'sources' being supplied or cited in the article (or here) are about the owner, and the only sources about the club are a blog and the own club's website. The owner is more referenced (mainly from sources that do not meet WP:RS) than the club, yet she is the blurb on the club's page? Now even if we reversed it, I would still list the article for AfD (and follow up with a deletion review if it was kept by the closing admin) but it just strikes me as funny. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 00:39, 4 January 2007 (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.