Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klute (nightclub)

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. —Doug Bell ^talk 09:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Klute (nightclub)

Klute (nightclub) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This article is mostly original research Bladeofgrass 17:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete no sources, original research. The list of D-list celebrities isn't particularly notable either even if it were sourced. Demiurge 21:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article is awfully sourced, and I'm not sure that it would be easy to find sources on such a topic. However, the club does have almost legendary status in Durham (legendary, that is, for being monumentally appalling), and is a small pop culture phenomenon in and of itself. Because of that, I do think that Klute deserves an article. Delete, per nom. Barnas 17:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This article isn't awfully sourced, it isn't sourced and it probably never will be. The only two verifiable facts are that it plays cheesy music and it's the second worst club in Europe: not much for a whole page. Also, most of the 'facts' are opinions: "Andy Readman is well known for his doormanship and stern attitude","Klute has gained a niche and successful reputation" Wikipedia can't have original research on, even if thousands of students swear by it. Only when these facts are reported elsewhere can this be included in Wikipedia: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable". This article should be deleted, and the only two verifiable facts incoporated into another article eg. Durham Bladeofgrass 22:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I think whether something merits an article and the quality and verifibility of that article are seperate issues. That said, after re-reading the article, I'm not sure if it could ever be made into a decent article, so it should probably go. Barnas 09:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. My eyes, my eyes! It's burning them with its non-notability. WMMartin 18:05, 27 November 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.