Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Cupids (club)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  • Comment - Did not know that the Times Online and Guardian Unlimited were considered tabloid. Has there been a change in management?. Shoessss |  Chat  22:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    The news was first broken by the News of the World, probably the scummiest of the tabloid press in terms of lies and over exaggeration. The allegations are true and are included in Tommy Sheridan's article but we do not need an article for the brothel he went to. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 22:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Shoessss, the point is WP:N. Being mentioned in some court proceedings isn't notability and would lead to a highly POV portrait of the topic even if the discussions were in sufficient depth. A rewritten and properly sourced article could change my mind, but I don't expect one. --Dhartung | Talk 00:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    Comment – I’m sorry, I did not realize that two sentences, as the piece now stands, is as you put it; “…highly POV portrait of the topic” How? I see no WP:POV in the piece. Regarding who broke the story first, again so eloquently put; “…The news was first broken by the News of the World, probably the scummiest of the tabloid press,” makes no matter. The club has established WP:Notability by Wikipedia standards, as it is has received secondary – creditable – verifiable and notable coverage from more than one source, and as I pointed out above, from not so scummy sources. . If we begin to censor information because we may disagree with the information or the subject matter, why have the project at all? Thanks for listing. Shoessss |  Chat 
    The entire article is POV as it does not cite a single source. You are not basing your claims that it is notable on any form of wikipedia policy and just keep repeating "WP:Notability". Your aggressive comments are not helpful in this afd so unless you have some policy which supports your idea that a brothel can be notable please do not keep repeating yourself. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 01:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment – Ah the Chicken Ranch (Texas) to note just one. Concerning policy, what may I ask, do you think WP:Notability is? Just follow the little Blue Link. Moreover, with regards to aggressive, stating an opinion is aggressive? Please explain. Thanks. Shoessss |  Chat  01:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    You are using an aggressive tone to other users please see WP:CIVIL. That brothel you refer to has been open many more years than the one in question and has been written about in published works. This one is mentioned as part of a much larger perjury case concerning a Scottish MSP in the media. There are brothels mentioned in the media all the time across the world by the media, this does not mean they should all have an article. This one is no more notable than any other brothel which has been visited by a celebrity of any description. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 01:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment – Ok ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ lets take your points one-by-one. First, you say that: “…Was in the news for a very short time many years ago.” However, I found six articles, provided above, within the last 12-14 months regarding the club. By my standards that is not “many years ago”. Second, you state: “,,,is just an advert for a sordid backstreet sex club.”. Please if you can establish this article as spam, I will tag it for Speedy Deletion personally. Third, you claim the: “…The entire article is POV”. Where, the article is two sentences long. This article is not, by any stretch of the imagination WP:POV. Forth, as you put it: “…brothel you refer to has been open many more years than the one in question.” Sorry to disagree, if you look at the sources I provided, you will see an article written in 1974. By my math, that is 34 years ago. I believe that establishes longevity. Fifth, if you disagree with the content of the article, that sir is WP:POV. Finally, if you believe my tome is aggressive, I apologize, it is not meant to be. I believe you state the facts, be they good or bad, and move on. In this case that is all I am doing. Either way the article goes, good luck to you. Shoessss |  Chat  02:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  1. “…Was in the news for a very short time many years ago.”...The story broke many years ago, what you define as many and what I define as many may be different.
  2. “,,,is just an advert for a sordid backstreet sex club.”...In the article's current state with no sources and only an external link to the website of the brothel it is merely an advert.
  3. “…The entire article is POV”...Anything which is not backed up with valid sources and could be questionable is POV even the article uses the word "allegedly" suggesting POV.
  4. Your fourth point makes little if any sense.
  5. I am not suggesting a deletion on moral grounds, I am suggesting it because it is a non-notable subject, if you are a fan of brothels that is your prerogative.
  6. Finally, your tone is somewhat aggressive on what is supposed to be a civil debate to determine the notability of a subject. An example of this is your message..."Did not know that the Times Online and Guardian Unlimited were considered tabloid. Has there been a change in management?" It is clear that as a British citizen I know the Times and Guardian are respected publications and I was not trying to make out they were tabloid press. A simple request for clarification would have sufficed rather than an extreme bout of sarcasm. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 03:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment PS - Did you motice the story is - cited - referenced and sources provided. Thanks Shoessss |  Chat  10:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)