Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot Lap Dance Club

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. pretty clear consensus and since there seems to have been some socking thats enough justification to put this one to bed Spartaz Humbug! 15:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Lap Dance Club

[edit]
Hot Lap Dance Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As far as I can determine, this is a Manhattan business which was closed after the owner plead guilty to running a prostitution ring from it. It was in the newspapers in New York, but I'm not convinced that this club really meets WP:ORG, or transcends the requirements of WP:NOTNEWS. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"No reasons given for not notable, and no showing that a Google search was done. User has only one edit which was dated Jan. 22, 2011 and no showing of any contributions. Articles involving the adult entertainment industry should not be treated with less consideration." FreedomFighter77 (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Definitely a case of WP:NOTNEWS, especially since the "controversial" part of the sting operation is not substantiated. Also, "worldwide media attention"? New York is not the world. Attampt at embellishment to create notability. -- BenTels (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, worldwide media attention, as evidenced by article from United Kingdom; if you do a google search, there are articles in Chinese, Russian and other languages; the term "controversial" has been deleted.FreedomFighter77 (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable per WP:CORP, as the only assertable importance is due to the shutdown, and not from the existence of the business itself. Also a case of WP:NOTNEWS due to lack of anything substantive in terms of controversy, legal precedent, etc. --Kinu t/c 09:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to being shut down, the Club was rated by AskMen.com as the top gentlemen's club in the world. A reference to the Article has been added in. FYI, AskMe.com is considered the largest men's portal on the Internet.FreedomFighter77 (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Receiving a rating that is based on an undiscernable methodology from a website of dubious reliability is not an indicator of notability. --Kinu t/c 23:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: The Article indicates that the Hot Lap Dance Club was rated by respected strip club industry websites as one of the top strip clubs in the United States (if not the world). The lawsuit by a customer over a dancer received worldwide media attention. The prostitution trial of the 2 dancers at the club was a rarity as most prostitution offenses are pleaded out to a minor offense. A criminal court Judge threw out the cases against both dancers and now one of the dancers is suing the City of New York for $5 million dollars. There are over 300 references to the "Hot Lap Dance Club" in a Google search and clearly the article meets standards for inclusion under WP:ORG as it is sufficiently sourced and independently notable.FreedomFighter77 (talk) 13:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC) — FreedomFighter77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment. FreedomFighter77 has expanded the article significantly since the nomination for deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are several Wikipedia articles about legendary clubs in Manhattan that have closed down, including The Limelight, Billy's Topless, Plato's Retreat, Studio 54 and the St. Marks Bath House.FreedomFighter77 --(talk) 23:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LibStar (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete it appears to have continuing coverage only as tangentially related to the site where arrests occurred. the "sources" for the awards/ranking and the rankings/awards themselves are dubious at being those that would meet WP:N as significant industry awards - theres a billion and one porn men's lifestyle sites, and each and every one hands out "best of". Active Banana (bananaphone 20:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are many websites out there; however, you need to know which ones have clout. Askmen.com is universally accepted as the premier men's lifestyle portal and it has 15,000,000 readers a month. It has an Alexa traffic rank of 907, traffic rank in U.S. of 517, and 6,655 sites linking to it. In the strip club circuit, the two main strip club directories are www.TUSCL.com and www.StripClubList.com. In fact, they are both mentioned in the Wikipedia article on Strip Clubs in the section on "Top Clubs."
The continued coverage is not merely tangentialy related to the site, but have a direct bearing on the club and the dancers who worked there.FreedomFighter77 (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (bordering on weak delete). It comes down to the depth of coverage about the club and not events that happened at the club. While I think a commendable job has been done by FreedomFighter77 expanding the article, I'm not convinced that the club itself has met the hurdles of WP:ORG. —C.Fred (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are no website promotional materials that you would ordinarily find with an organization that fails to meet the requirements of WP:ORG
There are no specific comments by this Administrator to back-up their position that the Article be deleted, or even that shows that this Administrator has actually looked at the Article. FreedomFighter77 (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, WP:NOTNEWS. After clean up efforts, it is still sourced to blogs, non-RS sites and user-generated sites for much of the information and still contains some original research and synthesis such as the prosecutor's "erroneous" use of a particular assertion. If stubbed via removal of all improperly sourced information, would be clearer than ever that we are dealing with WP:1E and WP:NOTNEWS.Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:02, 26 January 2011
Contrary to this Administator's comments, the sources are mostly all to original source documents such as newspaper articles and major websites that are completely independent of the article. I would suggest taking a closer look at these sources before you jump to conclusions. If it makes a difference, I can add some additional original sources.
However, valid point on "erroneous" which I changed to "qustionable assertion"FreedomFighter77 (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article has been improved and there are more sources cited. However, I cannot afford to spend any more time on this article. If the consensus is to delete, then I would suggest deleting the article in its entiretyFreedomFighter77 (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

This is an inappropriate accusation and personal attack, especially since this User http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bobbyd2011 did not pop up until this Article was selected for deletion. See WP:OUTING (talk) FreedomFighter77 (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Asking whether you are a sockpuppet hardly constitutes outing. Frankly, I'm curious too. Favonian (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:NPA FreedomFighter77 (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the alphabet soup. Was that a "yes" or a "no"? Favonian (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NPA I have attempted to help out with editing an article and all I get are personal attacks. I am leaving Wikipedia. Thank you.FreedomFighter77 (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That sort of sounds like a 'yes.' -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it matches Lawline's behavior in every aspect. I hear quacking. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:23, 27 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hot_Lap_Dance_Club&oldid=1091564317"