Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rainbow Lounge raid

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Lounge raid

edit
Rainbow Lounge raid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable bar, One Event, and Recentism. Article should be deleted as it is one event and recentism. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. Sorry, this is huge news coupled with the poor timimg with the 40th Annivesrasy of the Stonewall riots - which were sparked by a ... police raid on a gay bar. An abundance of reliable sources exist and the event has already sparked an investigation and a new group forming - Fairness Fort Worth. There is also the likely lawsuit from the brain damage and two other patrons who had bones broken by the police. This is not going away. I'll work on the article. -- Banjeboi 07:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Article is about the event, not the bar... so we should follow whatever the going standard is for articles about events (will defer to more knowledgeable editors there). Recentism by itself is not a reason for deletion (at least according to the essay). By Wikipedia standards: the bar is not notable, nor would be the event by itself (if it had stopped there). What would make it notable is the public's reaction to it, which led to the NY Times and LA Times reporting the story. Wikignome0529 (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 100% Recyclable - I have to agree with Wikignome0529, yet will add that since such a type of persecution/event is still happening 40 years later and the fact that it made headlines because of the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, the entire contents should be incorporated into the Stonewall Riots article. --CJ Withers (talk) 11:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. The Stonewall riots article should remain focused on the events of 1969 and what were spawned from them. There are two sentences about the Rainbow Lounge raid in the Stonewall riots article now. Including more would be recentism. I do not yet have any opinion on the Rainbow Lounge raid article, as there are many issues still unclear and are not being reported quickly. Merging it into Stonewall riots, an FA, is something I do have an opinion about. It should not be done. --Moni3 (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have read it. Have you read WP:AGF? Being condescending always fails to convince me to change my !vote. Use WP:ONEEVENT if you want. All the coverage all comes back to one event. Without that one event, this would be just another gay bar that nobody outside of the local area heard of. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the time being, but watch; the news may fizzle out . This event has been fairly well covered in the press since it occurred . I have seen a lot of discussions in blogs and the like . It is certainly not WP:NOTNEWS. -- Scheaffer Sirls user talk —Preceding undated comment added 19:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comments I don't know enough about Wikipedia's critera to say for sure if this article meets it's criteria for a separate article. The investigation is continuing and the US Attorney is now investigating, so I would ask that we wait a few weeks and see how that goes before deleting it. Markg65 (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment about the 651 (Rainbow Lounge) history I have some comments about the Rainbow Lounge's history that the press hasn't mentioned yet. The Rainbow Lounge might only be a couple of weeks old, but the very small building it's in (1200 square feet?) has quite a local history to LGBT people and Fort Worth police. The address is 651 South Jennings, just south of downtown Fort Worth. It was Fort Worth's first gay bar in the early 80's. Gay bars were still illegal in Fort Worth when it opened. The first bar was a Country Western bar with no visible signs in an abandoned industrial strip. It was called 651, completely dark with just 651 over the door which was the address number. It was raided and harassed by the Fort Worth Police for years. Gay bashing was popular as the police would stand by and laugh as people drove by and yelled and threw things at people going into the bar. There was an incident where two customers were shot and killed walking from the 651. A local judge gave them a light sentence and specifically said it was because they had killed gay men to keep them from spreading aids. The bar has a history of closing and reopening, mostly because harassment of customers. (People just drive to Dallas's gay strip instead). The 651 had been closed for about 2 years and just re-opened as a dance style bar (not Country and Western as it previously had been). Many locals believe the Fort Worth police raided the first week to scare everyone off and get the bar closed again. I really wish the national media would report on this history. Markg65 (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for now. The bar may not be notable, but the event seems to have enough coverage for inclusion. I say we reserve judgement for later, i.e., when more information is in the article - but even then, with the links, I think we've got a keeper. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, NN bar but notable event - see News search. Bearian (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Reprint of details added to article's discussion page:

1) Is the event important or newsworthy? YES: Multiple major news networks are covering the event, and it touches on strong themes in society such as (unverified) police brutality and (unverified) gay persecution.

2) Does the article site sources? YES: All major points in the article are sited in the appropriate footnotes.

3) Does the article take a neutral voice? YES: Though this could be cleaned up a bit, and additional information added, there is no definite bias to the information presented, nor is the tone of the article in first-person, third-person, etc. No "weasel words" are used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.50.246.246 (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a friendly note. Please remember that you don't want to turn this into a soapbox issue. This page is for discussion of whether to keep or delete the listed entry. It looks like a clear keep, so adding related stories and opinions not directly related to the current discussion isn't the best idea in my opinion. Wperdue (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
Comment I understand what you mean. The only reason I put them here is that I felt like they are direct fallout from the Rainbow Lounge Raid. But if you feel they are too far removed, you can remove them. Thanks, Mark Markg65 (talk) 23:14, 11 July 2009 (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/Rainbow_Lounge_raid&oldid=1255417337"