Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitchell Brothers O'Farrell Theater

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Brothers O'Farrell Theater

excessively promotional, redundant, notability marginal

The O'Farrell Theater is a strip club that is actually quite well known (at least locally); article doesn't cite references but some probably exist. It's best known for one of the Mitchell Brothers (founders/owners) shooting the other one to death in the early 1990's. The incident, and some info about the theater, is already documented at Mitchell brothers. I feel this article is excessively detailed about the theater's facilities and hours (WP:SPAM) and that the encyclopedia doesn't need separate articles about the theater and the Mitchell Brothers (the remaining one of them still owns the theater, I think). An attempt to trim back the article resulted in a revert.

~~Merge~~ Conditional keep as nominator.-- Phr (talk) 10:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- New edits make the separate article more worth keeping, but it's still excessively promotional in my view, needs to be de-adverted. Phr (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This club is the best (POV that many agree with) in California, and probably in US. It features the highest quality adult entertainment, most who visited it would agree. It's top-notch in it's industry. Strippers all over California just dream to work there, and many come from out of state (from Seattle, from Florida). I am not affiliated with the club and am not promoting it. I just feel that it deserves the separate Wikipedia article due to the club's exceptional quality. Or else all the articles in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Strip_clubs should be deleted the same way since they are of the similar nature.

Keep as original author.-- BlackAsker (talk]) 10:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, here's what Wikitravel says [1]:

"Mitchell Brothers O'Farrell Theater, 895 O'Farrell. Tourists have flocked here for live, nude girls and dirty movies since 1971, when porn star Marilyn Chambers followed her performance in a Mitchell Brothers' film by becoming an Ivory Snow model. The venue is large, clean, and the biggest rip-off in adult entertainment this side of Paris. $40 gets you in the door, and the girls demand large tips for anything more. Avoid this over-priced, over-hyped tourist trap for the Crazy Horse on Market (next to the Warfield) or any of the clubs on Broadway in North Beach." Phr (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment some of the other strip club articles do look dubious; however, none of them, as far as I can tell, already have separate articles about their owners. Any that do should probably be merge-able too. I'm ok with merging the content of the Mitchell brothers into the article about the O'Farrell theater instead of the other way around, if that helps. IMO, the current state of the theater article is still too much like an advertisement either way, though. Phr (talk) 11:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment agree with merge all the way around. Agree that it looks a bit like advertisement. But I just created it few days ago, had no time to add to it. Give me a week and I will add a lot more so it will not look like an ad. BlackAsker 11:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The idea that you're going to add a lot more is not reassuring. The objection that led to this AfD is that there is already too much in the article. Phr (talk) 11:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment author's entire contrib history appears related to this theater. Phr (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Although it is arguably semi-notable of itself as a local landmark: de-advert, then merge into Mitchell brothers, which is where truly notable story lies -- a Greek tragedy with added porn.~~ Following the recent update of this article, I've now changed my opinion to keep -- there's enough here for a stand-alone article now, and I think it now passes the notability test. -- The Anome 21:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Where are the external reliable sources? I'm not seeing any, and until those sources are in the article, I believe it is appropriate to delete. Certainly seems notable on the face of it, but without someone important saying that it is, it's unlikely. Captainktainer * Talk 12:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Per the sources added to the article by Fireplace, I am changing my vote to a weak keep. I think the sources are somewhat borderline (particularly IMDB), but they're substantial enough to show notability, and they agree substantially on most details. More and better sourcing would be wonderful. Captainktainer * Talk 14:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As porn theaters go, it's a landmark. I added quite a bit of content to the page that reflects this. Fireplace 13:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But where are the sources to prove it? Captainktainer * Talk 13:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Added sources. Fireplace 13:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wikipedia polices are below. Read these and then decide. KarenAnn 13:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable San Francisco landmark (albeit an infamous one). If editors feel the article reads too much like an ad, then modify it accordingly. 23skidoo 14:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: a suggest to merge does not come to AfD. That's why we have {{merge}}, believe it or not. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 15:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD is because the merge proposal was made and contested. Merging is a frequent outcome of afd's. Phr (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but if you just want to merge, you can use the talk page to arrive at a consensus. Keep, btw, as apparently notable on its own and verifiable. NickelShoe (Talk) 23:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 23skidoo and after the added sources. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing wrong with the article. It is a visitor attraction and a landmark. Vegaswikian 05:57, 22 July 2006 (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.