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. RL0919 (talk) 11:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blow Buddies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article about a non-notable nightclub. Existing sources are poor quality, and coverage about the subject is routine and superficial. Fails WP:ORG. - MrX 🖋 12:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. - MrX 🖋 12:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are several reliable sources that cover the topic in depth, it may be a stub now but it is the largest gay sex club in San Francisco, a notable city for the LGBT+ community if not the most notable one, basically it's the biggest gay sex club in the gayest city in the world. That alone merits inclusion. Gothamist, Gay Star News, and the Bay Area Reporter are not minor mentions their articles give the matter significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and therefore anyone should see it should be kept, just because the sources are largely the LGBT+ press does not mean the sources are invalid. One would expect gay topics to be covered further in depth by the gay community itself anyways and their media matters too.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 12:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – This and this appear to indicate it is of significant academic interest in relation to the AIDS epidemic. Some other Google Books hits like p. 118 of this book show notability in the SF gay scene. There are several localized news coverage[1][2][3] and even tourism books like this one. IMO, there is enough to meet WP:GNG. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 23:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable.--NL19931993 (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC) banned sock[reply]

• Keep – Seems to meet WP:GNG as per Coffeeandcrumbs and Ndołkah. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Coffeeandcrumbs and Cwmhiraeth - plenty of news coverage is available to help improve the article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Coffeeandcrumbs and Ndolkah. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above. Toughpigs (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2020 (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.