Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinawhite (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The result was Nomination withdrawn. Giant Snowman 07:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chinawhite (nightclub)

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

No evidence of significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources as required by WP:GNG. A few passing mentions in tour guides etc. (because it is a 'cool' place) and a few passing mentions in tabloids etc. (because 'cool' famous people go there) is not sufficient. Giant Snowman 21:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This nom is a prime example of the "stubborn editor" point of my Encyclopedia problems. Seriously, this is one of the most notable nightclubs in London, a global city and has been cited as "London's most elite nightclub". Easily passes GNG. Plenty of coverage in London guides and newspapers. Over 500 hits in Highbeam research, plenty of coverage in non tabloid papers like Oakland Tribune, US Fed News Service (which cites it as a high-profile London club), Chicago Sun Times, NZ Herald on Sunday, Hindustan Times, Birmingham Evening Mail etc. This book even has a chapter on the VIP area of Chinawhite. Not to mention book sources like Contemporary Intellectual Property: Law and Policy, A Practical Approach to Trade Mark Law and A guidebook to intellectual property which document a legal dispute it was involved with.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: Not everyone has full access to Highbeam, and some of those sources don't mention the club from the bits I have 'free' access to...perhaps if you AGFed a bit more (and actually explained re:notability at your talk page rather than simply blanking my posts) then this nomination would not have been required? Giant Snowman 07:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well-covered in several high-quality sources. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dr. Blofeld's sources, –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:17, 3 July 2014 (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.