Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Bennies

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. Delete arguments fail to address notability, and mostly address the article quality, which as keep arguments aptly note, can be improved via the normal editing process Go Phightins! 00:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Red Bennies[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable former club lacking non-trivial references. The references consist of proof someone was featured there (listings) or trivial mention of the club. Needs more in-depth support to establish notability. reddogsix (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is in fact a great deal of non-trivial in-depth coverage of this topic by independent reliable sources, satisfying the very core of WP:GNG. [1][2][3] That it's a "former" club has nothing to do with notability. Slapping a "notability" tag only three minutes of article creation and then nominating for AfD less than a day later after an abundant amount of sources have been added is not helpful to this project. --Oakshade (talk) 08:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Interviews with their creative director - hardly independent. These are short articles - I would question the depth of the coverage. Like I indicated, there are a lot of listings for the artists that played there, but I question the non-trivial coverage. BTW - my indication of this as a "former" club does not have any bearing on the notability - it was just used to clarify the description. reddogsix (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews by Independent sources are in fact in-depth coverages of a topic. If the topic interviewed themself in a self-published work then you'd have a point. But even the non-interview profiles are enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are primary sources. The article lacks in-depth secondary sources. reddogsix (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The interviews were conducted and published by secondary sources, not by Red Bennies itself. That conducting and publishing of interviews is in-depth coverage. Red Bennies is not Time Out or Beat magazines. They are secondary to Red Bennies. That these secondary sources found the topic notable enough to give coverage to this topic by interviewing the director, demonstrates notability. Using the club director's words, the primary source you're referring to, from an interview conducted and published by a secondary source would only be an issue if the words supported article content, ie "Red Bennies is the most popular club in Australia" when only the club director said so and not a secondary source did. By claiming the words in an interview within coverage by secondary reliable source is "primary" is simply a red herring. --Oakshade (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews can and are sometimes published by parties other than the interviewee, this does not negate the fact that it "...[still holds] an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." What appears to be missing is the third-party in-depth "...interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." I am not trying to "bust your chops" here, I am only indicating why I disagree. I have no dog in the game, so perhaps this is better left to the community to decide. My best to you. reddogsix (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If there were one or two interviews with legitimate news outlets, I might agree with user:reddogsix, but there are 43 footnotes on this page, so I think this passes the notability threshold. I am slightly concerned that this article is written without an NPOV, and also that the article has been authored by one user, which appears to be a single purpose account (though this may be their first edits.)--Theredproject (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article could certainly use a lot of cleanup in terms of encyclopaedic style, grammar etc. It could also use some better references. But I don't think it's valid to propose deletion based on a lack of notability after less than a month. I vote we keep it, tag it with a refimprove tag, then we can reconsider after a reasonable time period.Mark Marathon (talk) 03:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - from what I can see, this was a notable theatre club. Many of the issues can be fixed through the ordinary editing process. Bearian (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bombarding an article with passing mentions, non mentions, lia=sting and the club talking about themselves does not make them notable. There is a lack of depth of coverage about the club. The audience is not broad enough. A mix of promotion, misuse of sources and fakery. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete as above, complete overuse of passing mentions and most sources are beat.com.au , there isn't the breadth of coverage to get this over the line. LibStar (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 07:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The beat.com.au sources such as this one already in the article provide sufficient documentation of this place as a significant music venue and nightclub. --do ncr am 08:30, 3 December 2014 (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.