Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pulse (nightclub)

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. This is a pretty clear snow keep at this time. I did consider the consensus and groupthink argument mentioned below, but do find sufficient rationale among commenters that this article should be kept for now. In the long term, if someone wants to reconsider this, that's fine, but for now, I think it's a pretty clear keep as per the outpouring of arguments. Go Phightins! 19:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pulse (nightclub)

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

Not notable in its own right. Everything said here in this short article is already said in the main article on the shooting. In addition this is complete recentism. Nothing in the future will likely be added to this article that will not feature in the main article. Mootros (talk) 10:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the incident itself. The incident doesn't confer notability on the club but some of the content should be available in the article on the incident. Note: nom has malformed the AfD and accidentally listed the talk page but I'm sure that will be rectified. MLA (talk) 10:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have fixed the malformed nomination (the talk page had been listed instead of the article page). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. The article cites a subscription-only source that a "major" shooting occurred there in May 2013. If someone can gain access, we might find out a lot more about that, but in any case, that means it's not solely related to the 2016 terror attack. There are many crime articles where the shooter gets his own article, just because. How about letting the site targeted also have its own article? I bet there will be a lot more background coming out over the next couple of days, making this much easier to research than it is now. Wnt (talk) 10:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Despite Orlando being a heavily tourist oriented place, there's nothing of substance on the club in the usual travel guides in google books. They usually cover notable clubs and hotels in that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added in a bunch of commentary from travel guides. Note that the Frommer's website merely fluffs readers off to other websites for LGBT options, so the usual travel guides really aren't a barometer in this area. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just going to those sites, Gay Orlando only lists clubs, doesn't describe them; Gay-Guide is for sale, and when I go to the Wayback Machine is much the same as the prior, a location-specific DMOZ of sorts; The Centre is a community non-profit, and its directory is largely (if not only) of GLBT support services. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for now. Give editors a chance to expand this article. Sources like this and this are helpful, and provide a narrative that goes beyond just the 2016 shooting. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: ~~I am not !voting in this AFD yet, but I think~~ maybe we should give this article a day or two to maybe find more reliable sources. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge no harm in taking time over this to see what sources appear as editors dig into it but with the sources I can find in a cursory search I'd say this needs merging to the shooting article. SPACKlick (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Recent events have made this club very notable, and the detail needed regarding its history would make the shooting article too long.Juneau Mike (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is useful, as it should and does contain any and all information about Pulse not related to this shooting event. For example, the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building has its own article. -Mardus /talk 15:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article showcases plenty of information on board, many of which doesn't fully relate to the shooting right now. Besides, I've seen plenty of articles that showcase much less information then this article has now, and yet we've kept those articles that held only one reference point at hand. – AGreatPhoenixSunsFan (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. No notability except for the shooting incident. Raider Duck (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of recent events and the existence of reliable sources. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful article based on reliable sources.--Gerry1214 (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article meets general notability guidelines and contains information that goes beyond the recent shooting. Rab V (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. While the event is clearly notable, Pulse itself probably isn't. – Robin Hood ^(talk) 20:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rab V. Subject is notable per WP:GNG.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has useful info that's not related to the shooting. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has reliable independent coverage outside of the recent shooting and thus meets WP:GNG. Z105space (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as the location of the worst mass shooting in US history. Plenty of reliable, independent sources document its existence and place in the community up until that time. Moncrief (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:N, and WP:LASTING. I see no evidence given the diversity of the sources to see how this isn't notable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' One of the more momentous events in gay history, and the club therefore certainly deserves its own page. Plus: gve the editors some time, it's been two days since the event only... Karin Spaink (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- An Islamic terrorist attack where 49 civilians were killed is a "momentous event in gay history"? Seriously?! Either you have no idea what's going on, you have a knack for choosing the worst words possible, or you're a complete sociopath. TheListUpdater (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:N, WP:LASTING. Has its own sources, too. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 23:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge with the incident at hand. I dont believe sandy hook elementary has an article of it's own? user:BrxBrx(user talk:BrxBrx)^{(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}})} 00:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BrxBrx: Sandy Hook Elementary School redirects to Newtown Public Schools. Though there may not presently be a need to distinguish it from a half dozen other sites in the district, there definitely is a need for it to have an article independent of the attack. Wnt (talk) 10:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral With Mateen being a regular of the nightclub, there might be more about earlier history this can grow into. ([1]). -- Callinus (talk) 05:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTALBALL, there may be some notability in the future is not a policy argument for keeping it.SPACKlick (talk) 10:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly for the level-headed comment! Mootros (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should be expanded given time.--☭🎆🌎🎼🎺🐦 08:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is obviously now a notable club due to recent events (2016 Orlando nightclub shooting). There will be more details as time passes. Maybe later we can revisit deleting this article but for the moment there is plenty of potential. --Joey (talk) 09:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Knowledgekid87. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 11:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Karin Spaink --ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 11:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's much too soon to determine long-term notability. It could become an inconsequential detail, or it could become another Stonewall. Let's wait it out. --tooki (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the venue is not going to get any less notable, any more than The Admiral Duncan in London has. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Like how criminals and their crimes are tied to the same article, I don't think Pulse is notable enough, nor will be notable enough, for a separate article. To say that the place is different enough to justify a new article, it would be like saying the specific Safeway where Giffords was shot (2011_Tucson_shooting) has "enough references" for an article of its own. It doesn't. That being said, I think it should be kept for at least another week. TheListUpdater (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, give the article like a week or so as it helps to let the dust settle to see where to go from there. As for the article I see an abundance of keeps, and seeing a merge discussion isn't deletion hope this can be closed soon. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close. The venue seems to hold sufficient notability, and the consensus here is overwhelming. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Best to read the policy section on Groupthink and consensus. Mootros (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't much to the deletion rationale though as it boils down to notability. One side gives x on why it is notable, while the other side has y on why its not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT #5, Article linked on the main page.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article NOT a policy or guideline page. Mootros (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article as it stands appropriately describes the club itself and the club's history, with the current shooting as a footnote. Many (but not all) of the sources describing the club pre-date the recent shooting, demonstrating that this club was notable prior to current events, even if no one had yet written an article about it. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the references are either guide books or citations about the shooting. The shooting does not make this club notable. It seems that open and shut to me, though all these !keep votes above are befuddling and making me feel like I need to make a bigger case. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Joey. --Cupoftea155 (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2016 (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.