Talk:Pleasuredrome
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 2 June 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to [[ ]]. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
ANI comments
[edit]The following questions about sources were raised on this ANI on 17 March 2010 by Delicious carbuncle:
1. A listing of the facilities available is sourced to a travel guide which does not contain "Pleasuredrome" according to Google books (although there is a two line item for "Pleasuredome" which does not mention the facilities at all).
- Response: The fact that a footnote is added to a sentence does not imply that the entire sentence is proved by the citation. In this case the reference to "The Rough Guide to London" gives the address (so it is the right place even if there is a typo in the name) and describes the sauna as having quick turnover, a mixed crowd and open 24hrs daily. This seems relevant supporting information. It has been moved to the more appropriate section mentioning opening times.
2. The statement "The sauna opened as a gay sex on premises venue or gay bathhouse in 1998" is sourced to an archived copy of the bathhouse's website, which does not contain any information about the history of the bathhouse.
- Response: Additional citations added. An archive version of the original Pleasuredrome website is an appropriate citation to include in the article on Pleasuredrome and meets the reliable sources requirements.
3. The statement "The sauna is markets itself as "We never close" and is open 24 hours all year including Bank Holidays" (later changed to"The sauna is notable among London gay saunas for being open 24 hours a day all year, including Bank Holidays") is sourced to QX Magazine, but, just as with Chariots Shoreditch, this is a paid advert not a review or editorial.
- Response: This may be a misunderstanding of the reliable sources requirements. An article about a company may validly include references to press releases or advertising materials where these support factual statements about the organization. In this case, "The Rough Guide to London" also supports the statement about opening times, it is not controversial or disputed as factual.
The correct process would have been to raise questions about sources on this talk page. Going to ANI as a first port of call is unnecessary aggressive escalation and threatening behaviour. It should be noted that none of the information in the article supported by these sources has been challenged on the basis of being factually incorrect or needlessly controversial. —Ash (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe this could be put into Gay section and its within the scope of that project from the looks of it. QX is a reliable source if they run a review of a venue, the Pink or Gay Times reviews would also be good to add perhaps. The article is a small stub but could be worked upward. Wondering if there is anything in wikipedia about Gay London and its history?
Inclusionists and deletionists
[edit]
An extract from The Times 'The deletionists say that an encyclopedia is not a dumping ground for facts; standards of notability have to be upheld or their pages will fill with trivia. Inclusionists reply that Wikipedia's great advantage is that it has no space limit and that an entry of interest to just a few people is justified. Niche articles will never trouble most people, since access is through search.' the article goes on to say 'It's on the discussion pages of articles nominated for deletion that anger creeps in. Policy documents are referred to only by abbreviations. There's WP:NEO (avoid neologisms), WP:NOR (no original research), WP:NOT (what Wikipedia is not, including a dictionary, a crystal ball and a democracy) and the favourite of the deletionists WP:NOTE (notability)' [1]
I have added the above little 'stub' here talk not for a response but with a hope you enjoyed reading it and to give you a minute to think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.114.104 (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
' I am not the original author of the article here but do not beleive this article deserves deletion. I have looked around wikipedia and found two other venues of the same type listed without any deletion issues. The other articles are using similar sources. I have added some more info on the venue from sources including the Pink Paper and Time Out. It is a stub without a doubt as there is far more information that could be added about the venue and the history of the gay scene in that part of London. Then there is also the use of railway arches for land a topic that I think could also be expanded. Please reply here with any thoughts.
I have been looking through the other two articles:
I am wondering if all three are not best merged into one article?