Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Banana

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. J04n(talk page) 13:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Black Banana

Black Banana (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)

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I was able tp find some sources on Google Books. Seems to have been quite iconic. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it is kept, it most certainly needs a complete overhaul. It currently reads like a promotional piece. (Even though it is no longer in existence.) - Ambrosiaster (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP Well respected, important club in Philadelphia nightclub and GLBT, etc. subculture history through several decades. Has been referenced in numerous articles and books over time. One should also take note when searching, by looking for the alternative names for the club, as some references only appear as those names, or even slight differences. Centerone (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You and another user engaged in a discussion about potentially putting this article up for AfD back in December 2017. There was some discussion about bringing up sources, but nothing came to fruition. Where are all of these sources showing its importance? - Ambrosiaster (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - In addition to the very in-depth coverage from Philadelphia (magazine), the book Public Culture: Bulletin of the Project for Transnational Cultural Studies devotes an entire chapter to this club.[1]--Oakshade (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source. I just accessed it using a private database and read the chapter in the academic journal Public Culture. This article is certainly discussing "La Banane Noire," but defines it as a "French ice-cream parlor/restaurant that opened on lower South Street in 1971," and, although it does provide some rich information about the establishment, it doesn't classify it as a nightclub and doesn't say much about its link to LGBT culture (In fact, it says nothing). Perhaps some research will need to be done, then, to see how the evolution took place. (I'm not opposed to keeping this article, but I do think that some users are over-exaggerating its importance. Outside of small Philadelphia-based sources [and this academic article is also from the Ph.D. dissertation of a U-Penn grad student] from the time period, it is difficult to find too many sources of note. If it was such an important establishment, as Centerone suggests, I think that it would be a bit easier to find more contemporary articles about it -- outside of the Philadelphia magazine's promotional article on the Black Banana reunion.) - Ambrosiaster (talk) 06:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You say "Philadelphia-based sources" as if that's a bad thing. Of course a local club with significant importance in the subculture history of a local region is most likely going to be covered mostly in local sources. Part of the problem is that a lot of the sources that covered it over time were ephemeral and their historical archives have not yet been digitized. Centerone (talk) 03:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your original claim, as I understood it, was that it was an important night club for the LGBT movement. Now you seem to be claiming that it is a nightclub that is important to "the subculture history of a local region." Does that really meet the guidelines for

WP:GNG? —I am making an effort to find sources on the subject and to substantiate its notoriety, but, looking at it objectivity, I am just not sure if this place is as notable as everyone seems to be suggesting (and are mostly suggesting without reliable sources). After doing a Google books search, I saw that it was mentioned in the endnotes of the book, Fall of the 1977 Phillies, but, aside from that, most of the references I am finding are in local restaurant directories, etc. - Ambrosiaster (talk) 04:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

And I also want to note that the

WP:GNG. - Ambrosiaster (talk) 04:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that reporter Natalie Hope McDnnald and Philadelphia magazine were paid for a "promotional piece/advertisement"? It should be noted that

non-article space and that anything slanderous on a living person must be removed immediately. --Oakshade (talk) 05:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

The piece is entitled "The Black Banana Reunion" and it is patently promoting "Black Banana reunion on Sunday, January 16 (8 p.m. – 12 a.m.), at Voyeur." It also links readers to the Voyeur nightclub home page, where they can buy tickets for the event. I'm not even going to address your intimation that this is slanderous. You're just being silly. I've dedicated time to sourcing the article as best I can; I am trying to be objective. -- Ambrosiaster (talk) 06:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having a link to an event a reporter is writing about is not evidence and it is common practice. Even today's

New York Times has multiple links to music events being written about today. [2] Do you have actual evidence that this reporter is on the financial take and there is a conflict of interest? If not, that is potentially slanderous. --Oakshade (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Quite frankly, I do not want to engage in a debate with someone who is baselessly accusing me of slander for pointing out that an article promoting an event is promotional. (And no, the NY Times article that you linked is not analogous to the "Black Banana Reunion" article in that it is a review of events that have already taken place, not a piece that is promoting one single future event and is linking users to ticket sales, such as the Black Banana Reunion article is.) It should be fairly uncontroversial that that Philadelphia magazine article is promotional, and, if you want to accuse me of slander for pointing out that fact, then, to me, that is just evidence that you cannot find actual reliable sources to support the claim that this meets

WP:GNG. Just because users say that this nightclub is "important" does not mean that it is if there are no sources to back that up. - Ambrosiaster (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

And let me just quote this line from the piece for your perusal: "I miss the Black Banana. I miss my friends, the music, being able to have a glass of champagne in a real glass and not a dixie cup. That’s why I started the reunions – to bring people back to that experience of the Banana and introduce a new group of people to it. Today, there is a young generation embracing the 80s and 90s again – and the electro gaga scene is thriving in New York and Europe." The author is clearly identifying herself as the person throwing the reunions and is promoting them. What's slanderous here? (Read more at https://www.phillymag.com/g-philly/2011/01/11/the-black-banana-reunion/#YjhodWbfLwffF2AK.99) - Ambrosiaster (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A reporter stating their opinion on the topic they are covering - whether positive or negative - does not mean they are taking money from the topic to advertise it. You made the charge that reporter Natalie Hope McDnnald wrote a "promotional piece/advertisement" and you're not providing evidence of such. --Oakshade (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you take a moment and read the article? She is the one throwing the reunions and she is the one promoting the reunions online. Stop denying facts. -- Ambrosiaster (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is an obvious conflict of interest here. And I'm not going belabor the point. If others need to pass judgment, they can read this thread and make up their own minds. It is clear. - Ambrosiaster (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I read it. It doesn't matter if the reporter is favorable or not favorable to the topic, it's that publisher and the reporter gave the topic in-depth coverage. GNG makes no discrimination against opinion pieces. There could be an article called "The Black Banana is the Worst Place Ever!" and that would still be considered coverage per GNG as long as the publisher - in this case Philadelphia (magazine) - is independent of the subject and there is editorial control by the publisher. There's no contention that the reporter is favorable to the subject, but your charge the at the coverage is a "promotional piece/advertisement" has no weight. The publication even discloses other articles in the same page if they are advertisements with "Sponsored Content" of which is no such disclosure exists with this article in question. If you can provide any evidence, any, that is is a paid "advertisement" as you are claiming, then there might be weight to your charge. So far after repeated requests there have been none. --Oakshade (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly did not read the article. The "reporter" is the promoter. I'll copy-and-paste what I wrote above one more time and, after that, I'm bowing out gracefully and will let others decide. You already tried to resort to dirty tactics, such as accusing me of slander, so I quite frankly don't want to engage in a discussion with you. Not to mention, you're being illogical by denying the fact that the author is the promoter, something that is clearly spelled out in this article: ""I miss the Black Banana. I miss my friends, the music, being able to have a glass of champagne in a real glass and not a dixie cup. That’s why I started the reunions [at Voyeur night club] – to bring people back to that experience of the Banana and introduce a new group of people to it." After this paragraph, the author posts: "The Black Banana Reunion, Sunday, January 16 (8:00 p.m. – 12:00 a.m.), Voyeur Nightclub." Read more at https://www.phillymag.com/g-philly/2011/01/11/the-black-banana-reunion/#Mmyj8mXriPA6ZU3v.99 Ambrosiaster (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reporter is not the promoter. Nicholas Meoli, who is not the reporter, is the promoter. If you actually read the article you'll read: "As he gets ready for the official Black Banana reunion on Sunday, January 16 (8 p.m. – 12 a.m.), at Voyeur, he shared some of his fondest memory with G Philly about the now defunct, but influential destination that inspired trends in music, fashion and nightlife throughout two decades. Here’s his take:..." The content of "That’s why I started the reunions [at Voyeur night club]" is in fact by Nicholas Meoli, not the reporter Natalie Hope McDoneld. You're digging yourself in a hole here.--Oakshade (talk) 00:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]