Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steamworks (gay bathhouse)

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. postdlf (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steamworks (gay bathhouse)[edit]

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

Wikipedia isn't a travel guide. Not altogether convinced that this meets WP:N. It's a place of business that, like many similar places of business, had a bit of a county council licensing hiccup - no real earth-shaking legislation resulting from its licensing struggles or anything. The only source - aside from a couple of brief newspaper articles wholly concerned with the licensing struggles and the bath house's own website - is a LGBT-themed travel guide. The place certainly exists, but so too does the van down the street from me that serves Mexican food. I don't think that being mentioned once in a local newspaper is automatic notability. Perhaps other people see it differently? Badger Drink (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and make into a disambiguation page. Yes, true. Turns out there are at least three establishments, all gay, all bathhouses, and at least two of them notable.
Los Angeles 1 of 13 Google News hits for Steamworks Los Angeles, no quotes. The Sacramento Bee

Berkeley 1 of 17 Google News hits for Steamworks Berkeley, no quotes. Bay Area Reporter

Size matters as sauna plans to build next door; 10 April 2002. Edinburgh Evening News
Gay sauna legal row’s an open and shut case; 17 May 2002, Brian Ferguson. The Scotsman

Anarchangel (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. May be appropriate in a guidebook for gay people visiting Edinburgh. Not notable enough for Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the only indicators of notability fall afoul of WP:NOTNEWS. The kind of boring-routine news coverage that fills the local news sections on days when nothing really happens. At least in the US, you can find similar local news coverage whenever a strip club or adult video store finds a hole in suburban zoning, when Mrs Murgatroyd gives her annual presentation to the Garden Club on the wonders of edible aspidistra, or the recurrent biographies of the high school football coach (especially in Texas) who wins the league championship every two or three years. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia articles should not be", and this is not, a news story. WP:NOTNEWS forbids articles be written about news reports; it does not preclude news reports from being used as RS, or to show N, as should have been obvious. It is surely sad to someone that you are bored by news. Who knows, maybe they will stumble over your little SOAPBOX about it. Anarchangel (talk) 11:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Leftover cruft from the Ash (talk · contribs) era, should have been tossed long ago. Scant mentions in local sources for multiple "businesses" of the same name do not warrant a disambig; the target articles themselves would never pass notability. Tarc (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominem + assertions of Cruft with no facts (going backwards through the Cruft arms race timeline, we find each and every cruft warrior agrees: WP:Cruftcruftcruft-"editors who declare something to be "cruft" should take care to explain in their rationale for deletion which policy it fails and why it fails it.". WP:CRUFT2-"Editors, instead of simply declaring something to be "cruft", should take care to explain in their rationale for deletion why they think the material should be removed.". WP:CRUFT-"this usage is not a substitute for a well-reasoned argument based on existing Wikipedia policies")

Local Edinburgh sources? Edinburgh, population .47 million? Please. Anarchangel (talk) 11:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same for Berkeley, except that it is also across the Bay Bridge from the San Francisco offices of the Bay Area Reporter, and L.A., well, it is pretty big. Which does not really matter, because it is hundreds of miles away from the 'local source' in Sacramento. Anarchangel (talk) 11:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Along with the "cruft" name-drop, I actually provided explanation, so your red herring essay linkages kinda fall flat. Is that all you have? Tarc (talk) 21:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more convinced that my arguments were red herrings if you were to point out in what way they were inapplicable. It seems that you are implying that asserting no RS was sufficient to back a claim of Cruft; I was under the distinct impression that that assertion was in fact a claim that a dab page would be inappropriate. I disagree on both counts. You pass directly by my showing that the use of the word 'local sources' to describe news sources serving cities with large populations is misleading; "Is that all you have" is more convincing after such arguments have been addressed. I will address any future handwaving dismissals of multiple arguments as the former deserve; this is the one and only opportunity to avert what I currently see as a necessary change in my dealings with such gaming of the system. Anarchangel (talk) 04:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not meet general notability criteria.--יום יפה (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2011 (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.