Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emperors Club VIP

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 speedy

Emperors Club VIP

Emperors Club VIP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Does this alleged prostitution ring need its own article? I don't think so, and I don't think there's anything to merge here either. Delete and redirect to Eliot Spitzer. --Nlu (talk) 06:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a brothel known for one event. It really isn't notable outside the scandal, which doesn't even have a separate article at this time. There are no preceding citations on Google News, for example. --Dhartung | Talk 07:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I believe that the article is worth keeping. Although I originated it, it has had numerous edits in the past 48 hours which have significantly expanded it, thus showing broad based support. The material contributed goes significantly beyond what would be appropriate for the Spitzer article. Granted, it wasn’t in the news before Spitzer, but it certainly is in the news now. There are many other articles on brothels and escorts who are of equal or less notoriety. --Nowa (talk) 11:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There's probably a lot more to come on this story. RMc (talk) 11:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. If there is nothing more to say as events unfold it can be re-nomianted. HtD (talk) 11:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Current event has large publicity making this notable for the time being. -Jahnx (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now per Htd and others, Merge later if and only if Elliot Spitzer turns out to be the only high-profile person involved. It's way too soon to tell. Personally, I think the article shouldn't have been created until a 2nd high-profile person got exposed but the article is here and it's more efficient to keep it until things get settled. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think this article should be kept. I actually came to Wikipedia a few days ago looking for this article and could not find it. I am glad someone took the time to start it. This is a developing story and I think there will be a lot more to add to it and it will be a valuable addition to Wikipedia.. Given the expense of their service, I imagine Eliot Spitzer is just one of many high profile clients that may drop. Even if there isn't, this is a huge story and deserves a Wikipedia entry, as does the scandal itself. --HurryTaken (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Provisional Keep -- If prosecution results, it will certainly be notable enough. AnonMoos (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User:davidwr reasoning. Merge later if necessary. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This (business? website?), a costly call girl operation whose clientele includes the rich and mighty, easily meets any notability guideline that might apply. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2008 (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.