Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slimelight

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. Tone 23:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slimelight

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

Non-notable night club. Has some vague claims (eg, "oldest") but does not substantiate them with references. Mikeblas (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable. It was barely mentioned in The New York Times, and there are a couple other minor references behind pay-gates, but I'm not finding anything the significant coverage necessary to establish notability. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete unless someone can find sources that I missed. There does seem to be some coverage in third party source, but it's mostly directory sites and trvial mentions. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's the best known Goth night in London, if not the UK (speaking as someone who has friends into that scene) so I am surprised that there isn't more coverage. There is some coverage over at Google Books. I will keep digging, and I'd urge any !voters to have a good look too. Turning the article into one about the venue, Electrowerkz, might be an option, the two together might scrape enough coverage. Fences&Windows 03:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 03:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While borderline, it easily meets the "I heard of it before knowing there was a Wikipedia article" test, which has naught to do with policy but seems a useful rule of thumb. Extensive coverage is in this book, and there are several Google Scholar hits that seem to be fairly in depth and relevant. No objection with a merger to an article on the venue, but I suspect that this is its best known event. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
keep per Smerdis. It does seem notable. Simply south (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smerdis. I think you're confusing notability with verifiability; if it is as it claims the oldest goth night in the world, and if it is as Fences says the best known goth night in the UK, it must be notable. As for verifiability, there are references on the article! Marnanel (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This is a good point - as you say, it should be notable, but we could really do with reliable 3rd party sources. Currently we only seem to have a user-submission site [1], and the Times article doesn't seem to mention it at all [2] (?) Mdwh (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and I've also put out a call to London goths I know asking for help with good references and improving the article further. IMO clearly notable, but the references could do with a tuneup - David Gerard (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can't imagine what relevance a USA newspaper has to the notability of a long-running British nightclub. sheridan (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2010 (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.