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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tacoma Club (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)

This club does not meet the notability criteria. Mootros (talk) 02:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Comment - can't see anything to establish that it meets WP:CORPDEPTH. I note the club may have closed, or at least closed temporarily. So we might be dealing with something that was rather than something than is, and we need to remember that notability is not temporary. That said, having done a search, I can't find anything to suggest it was notable previously either, a la Studio 54. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 06:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep - The club closed in 2010, but it was a major social institution in Tacoma beginning in 1930, with many prominent members. A stub tag should be added and the article further tagged for development, but there's no cause to delete it.Clubwiki (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comment - Okay, so taking the above into account, I had another look in the interests of assuming good faith. There's not a lot but there are a couple that might be usable:

• This from the The News Tribune (from Tacoma).
• This from Unico Properties. Obviously not independent (is from the club's landlord), so not great for notability against WP:GNG. It's a passing reference (mentioned in a list) but is perhaps useful for confirming the location and prominence of the subject as an "anchor tenant", if we can establish notability.
• This from a charity fund-raiser held at the club. Gives more than just a passing mention to the club, though is obviously written to promo the event and should be considered to be at least partially WP:PROMO.

My concern is that there is still not a great deal there in terms of history for the subject. Everything I can find is essentially a passing reference, eg. "so-and-so got married at the Tacoma Club" or "we had dinner at the Tacoma Club" or "the venue for x event is the Tacoma Club". Yes, it obviously did exist but I'm not sure the above will be enough. I'm probably now on the fence and have changed by position above to Comment. Thoughts anyone? Stalwart111 (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:ORG. The closure of the club isn't relevant, lots of notable things aren't around anymore. But the fact that the article doesn't even try to assert notability is telling. It probably should have been speedy deleted, in fact. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Stalwart111, not a club like Studio54; it's a gentlemen's club like the Union Club of the City of New York. As search of the Social Register for the Seattle area is enough to turn up many notable members. The article should be tagged appropriately, but kept because the club was one of the most prominent gentlemen's clubs in the US in its day.Wikophile (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that; my point was in relation to venues - the sort of venue is irrelevant. I'm sure the club appeared in many directories but Existence ≠ Notability. Nor does the club inherit notability from its members. I'm happy for you to claim it, "was one of the most prominent gentlemen's clubs in the US in its day". But like everything else on Wikipedia that claim needs to be verified by reliable sources. If we had some then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not all social clubs are notable, and this one would not become notable merely because of its past membership list. I'd like to see good sources about what the club did or the notability of its clubhouse. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above and nom, not notable. It should also be noted that Wikophile and Clubwiki are sockpuppets and have been blocked. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 04:19, 22 September 2012 (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.