Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"200 Great Gay Bars"

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Can be individually recreated in a non-copyvio form if they individually pass WP:N.  Sandstein  12:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"200 Great Gay Bars"[edit]

Spin (Chicago) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sidetrack (Chicago) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Club Masque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tin Room (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Round-Up Saloon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Union Cafe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Rainbow Bar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Hippo (Baltimore) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Oil Can Harry's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Ten Atlanta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Mary's (Atlanta) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Heretic (Atlanta) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fritz (Boston) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Red Square (Burlington, Vermont) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Roscoe's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Big Chicks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The Cell Block (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Blake's on the Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Mad Myrna's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Denver Wrangler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The Square (Akron, Ohio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Series of articles about bars in the United States, whose only substantive or sourced claim of notability in each case is the fact that one magazine gave them each a 25-word blurbette in a "best gay bars" listicle in 2013. Each of the articles just consists of a single statement that the bar exists, and then quotes the entirety of the blurbette verbatim, and then the end. Which means that in addition to lacking any genuinely substantive claim of notability and not citing nearly enough reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG, as written these articles are also violating WP:COPYVIO. Delete all, without prejudice against some of them being recreated in the future if something substantial and original can be written and sourced about them. Bearcat (talk) 08:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but please hear me out since I created the stubs. I apologize for creating subpar stubs, but I meant well. I have been working on LGBT-related articles in Portland, including CC Slaughters, Egyptian Club, Stag PDX, Three Sisters Tavern, etc., and I was merely attempting to get the ball rolling for other cities, too. My goal was to fill a content gap and increase the number of LGBT-related articles by creating stubs for what I thought were notable establishments. I used Out's list as a means to create many short articles. A few of these stubs have been marked for, and saved from, speedy deletion because other editors acknowledged they had potential for expansion. Since these stubs are clearly suspect to some editors, I've stopped creating more. I imagine many of these stubs are for establishments that could/should have Wikipedia articles, but I'll let others decide. Sorry for being too aggressive by creating too many stubs that don't make notability evident from the start. But don't let my eagerness to get the ball rolling result in a mass deletion of possibly notable establishments. Thanks. ---Another Believer (Talk) 08:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to a topic like this, the correct approach is not to create a massive series of stubs about possibly notable establishments by copyvioing a listicle from some other publication — for each topic you want to address, the baseline that has to be met before the article even gets started is that you've already found enough sourcing and substance to demonstrate that the topic's notability is already definite rather than just possible. That is, the onus is not on Wikipedia to give them the benefit of the doubt, especially given the copyvio problem — rather, it's the creator's job to put at least enough work into the topic to ensure that no doubt exists to require any benefit-giving. Bearcat (talk) 08:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvios, if what is stated above is correct in each case. Any individual article may be recreated if sources for it can be found, but it is too much to expect editors to take it on trust that all N stub topics are notable without evidence in the form of citations. If it were a single article then no doubt we could be expected to search for sources here at AfD, but with such a large search task it simply isn't reasonable. The stubs are accordingly malformed and should be deleted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all with no prejudice against recreation, as long as sources are provided to establish notability. Since all of these articles are copyvio stubs, nothing is lost. sst✈ 14:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I PRODed Mad Myrna's, which began exactly the same way as the last article I nominated for deletion. Sources are supposed to back prose, not the other way around. Seeing enough of this lately causes me to wonder if this is how people are being taught to edit Wikipedia. What I saw was the barest minimum of prose, offering next to zero useful information, simply to justify a WP:COATRACK to a list which is no Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time plus other cloaked linkspam. Mad Myrna's location does hold some notability within Alaska's LGBT community. Don's Green Apple was a successful business from the 1950s to the 1970s, known to this day among Anchorage oldtimers as a LGBT-friendly establishment. Its successor, Pierce Street Annex, wasn't necessarily a gay bar but was known for hosting national comedy and musical acts. After Pierce Street moved to Tudor Road (which later became Hooters before closing in 2008), other gay bars including Mad Myrna's have occupied this spot, but none can make a comparable claim of notability. The location is the de facto ground zero for Anchorage's LGBT community and social scene, as Anchorage's other gay bars in recent history and the LGBT-friendly Anchorage Press are within a three-block radius, as is the Sheraton Anchorage Hotel where transgender balls have been held regularly for years. Still, it's no Chilkoot Charlie's, which has received attention from major mainstream national media outlets for longer than Mad Myrna's has been in business yet lacks an article. The lack of acknowledgment of any history and lack of acknowledgment of the existence of categories for drinking establishments evident in this one article appears to be repeated across other nominated articles I've browsed, bringing to mind WP:POVFORK as well. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 15:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy or else delete per Bearcat; reliable sources demonstrating notability need to be found before an article is created, not left for someone else to find eventually (or not). If the author likes they could all be taken to the author's userspace pending the addition of enough sources to clear WP:GNG; otherwise they should all be deleted, with no prejudice against recreating them if someone locates appropriate sources.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't need/want all of these moved to user subpages. I was just trying to create some stubs for people to expand over time. I do this all the time, but in this case editors are taking issue with my method (I think copyvio is a bit of a stretch... these are exactly the sorts of comments we see in reception sections at Wikipedia). I would bet some of these establishments are notable, so it would be a shame to see content deleted, but I'll be fine. I've stopped creating similar stubs and I will just go back to focusing on the individual establishments I want to write about. I am sorry for creating what is being deemed as unworthy content, but I did mean well. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You do have a point. While I haven't harped on this too much lately, I've been rather critical of the constant condescending attitude shown by WP:AFC participants towards subpar content submitted there, all the while tons of subpar content exists in article space, including articles which began life as AFC submissions. Then there's the editors who mass-create two-sentence (or two-paragraph), one-source stubs which languish that way for years and years. However, none of that absolves or excuses the copyvio or notability issues raised in this case, which is what's being discussed. As I pointed out with Mad Myrna's, simply being the latest incarnation of a possibly-notable lineage doesn't quite establish the notability of that particular entity, which brings to mind WP:NOTINHERITED as well. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 18:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, think there is a condescending attitude shown by AFC participants, and think too much content is marked for deletion without proper research first. But, I also recognize that there is a constant battle being fought against promotional content, spam, vandalism, etc. I have noticed that there are higher expectations of newly created content than in years past. Historically, I've been praised for creating so many new articles, even stubs, but stubs are less welcome now. I think it's too bad, but it is what it is. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Take Sidetrack, for example. Just doing a Google search for "Sidetrack" "Chicago" yields plenty of sources, which I posted on the article's talk page and copied below:
Possible sources for Sidetrack, Chicago
These may be subpar stubs, but that doesn't mean the subjects aren't notable. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of an uneven bulk nomination without prejudice to renominating individual articles. My kneejerk reaction was closer to delete (or userfy/draftify until AB expressed disinterest in that), but looking at the sources available (primarily those linked by Another Believer above), it's clear there's a case for notability for at least a couple of them. Since that's the case, the blanket deletion rationale must be something along the lines of WP:NOTDIRECTORY (or WP:COPYVIO, but that doesn't look to apply to all of them, if it applies at all, and those which do have the quotes can be fixed pretty easily) and/or WP:TNT. This doesn't look like a WP:TNT to me, but nor am I sold on all of these being appropriate. This is why I tend not to like bulk nominations -- because when they're not more or less interchangeable, the discussion gets messy. So I'd like to see these nominated individually, because there are at least a couple I'd be !voting weak keep or keep on. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In general these articles do not pass WP:N. There may be a few exceptions and I am open to articles being independently recreated that have sources that augment and support the single reference that this group of subjects shares.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delsort
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 02:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 02:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All: First off, this is entirely the sort of situation justifying why mass deletions are part of deletion policy in the first place; I see no merit in unbundling this into dozens of individual nominations (just so people can then complain about a zillion nominations they Don't Have Time To Research). Secondly, I believe Another Believer dug his own grave right here: "My goal was to fill a content gap and increase the number of LGBT-related articles by creating stubs for what I thought were notable establishments." May I ask upon what basis he thought these local businesses were notable? Other than that they were in this article, that of course not being acceptable? Absent doing the actual work to find sources justifying an assertion of notability before creating an article, there's no basis here to keep. Ravenswing 09:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assumed a gay magazine's list of the best gay bars in the world meant something. And I think it does. The Out quotes were just meant to be the start of reception sections for these establishments. I'd bet most of these bars have been covered by other reliable sources, as evidenced above. I am not offended that these will likely be deleted, but I am not sure we are improving Wikipedia by doing so. Hopefully I, or someone else, can get around to re-creating the articles at a later date. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sure that Wikipedia is improved any time a NN stub goes away. If you do choose to recreate any of these articles, I hope and trust you'll follow proper procedure for doing so: finding sources which satisfy the GNG, then creating the article, then including those sources in the article you're creating. Ravenswing 14:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All - Ravenswing's analysis regarding the group deletion is warranted is spot on. While some of these might prove to be notable (I did spot checks on several, and could find nothing but routine notices, listings, etc), I don't feel the extra volume of work which would be put on folks to have to comment and research each one is worth it. The few I spot checked certainly did not pass notability criteria. Onel5969 TT me 13:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/%22200_Great_Gay_Bars%22&oldid=1077840229"