1261:"Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator or notifying an associated wikiproject, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD."
1056:
gay sex may occur. On this page the terms "prurient" and "awful" have been used to describe the prospect of this well sourced list being added to
Knowledge (XXG) which may lead you to conclude that the sexual nature of the topic is at issue rather than the unemotional issue of it being a stand-alone list or not. If I gave the impression of making accusations otherwise I unreservedly apologise.—
597:, perhaps you could amend your vote accordingly? By the way, to clarify your example text; I do not believe there are any reliable sources claiming that Oscar Wilde went to gay bathhouses, though there is evidence he enjoyed the company of rent boys, witness statements at his trial provide a perfectly reliable source.—
1490:
Notable examples from the past should be kept in the main article. I accept the reasoning of the creators of this list and their efforts to avoid BLP problems. But the list will attract (even good faith) edits that are (at best) far from encyclopedic: the fact that Mr. X attends gay bath houses may
1070:
I'll add that I consider homosexuality and heterosexuality equal in all respects save for the gender of the participants. The primary reason I'm sticking with my delete vote is that the list should not be a standalone article, for the reasons stated. Its perpetual incompleteness renders it of limited
1032:
also made the list grossly underinclusive such that it would be of very limited usefulness to a person who wants to find a list of notable attendees. If the list is for illustration purposes - and it indeed does not claim completeness - it should be in the article it is intended to illustrate, not as
351:
to support the assertion of potential BLP concerns. In fact, I explicitly stated that "most of those currently included are dead". The length of time that some of this information existed in another article is not relevant to this discussion. And again, how many visits, or at what interval, do visits
328:
As the wording of the AFD reason has changed since the last attempt, I note that
Fashanu has been picked as a key example. If this is the issue then I suggest that this reference is discussed on the talk page, or Fashanu removed from the list until that discussion occurs. Deleting the entire article
517:
doesn't, of course, apply to dead people, this list isn't named "List of dead gay bathhouse regulars" and obviously won't stay to zero live ones. Beyond that, while I dislike reaching for the cruft argument, this is as crufty a list as I can imagine still existing; no doubt you could also source a
309:
states "If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so", consequently if the word regular needs explanation then this can easily be added to the current explanation of inclusion criteria in the lead text, though again the current text appears
1612:
doesn't include every individual with a
Knowledge (XXG) article who happens to be an atheist, because not all of them are notable for their atheism." So that's where it's stated that lists of people should be restricted to those famous for the topic. And the "intersection" has nothing to do with
1586:
actually seems rational but actually both list concepts are far more trivial than this list up for deletion. BTW this list is not an "intersection" as there are no notable women who have ever been documented as going to gay bathhouses and if there were, then a simple name change of this list would
1055:
Clarification - Please be clear I am not accusing anyone here of having a problem with gay people, this is different from accepting "the gay sexual nature of the topic". Someone who supports gay rights and lifestyles may not support the open existence or discussion about organizations where public
1075:
is of little use except perhaps to illustrate that many different characters in
Chinese are pronounced the same, and so should not be a standalone article but rather included in the article about Chinese, this list should have been included in the article it is intended to illustrate. I would not
1622:
Thank you for explaining that. I have clarified the lead text in order to address the matter of notability of the individual for going to gay bathhouses and make the criteria and rationale explicit rather than implied. Please note (as stated at the top of this AFD) the list name has already been
1009:(which in over 3 years has never been challenged) this list is far more reliably sourced, in compliance with guidelines and far less controversial and yet is put up for deletion within days of being created and with no attempt to follow up on the pre-existing discussion on the article talk page.—
1297:
Mm, but the problem with that is that the Delete proponents are, by and large, not saying "We think there are problems with the way this article is handling information, and it can be salvaged." It's much more "We disagree that this should be a standalone article at all, and it's inherently
1027:
concerns are at a minimum and does not justify deletion. But a big problem is that the list, by those criteria, would never be approaching completion - or even near. Not only because there will be likely new notable attendees every day, but also because the strict criteria necessary to avoid
281:
page for more than a year without any source or name on the list being challenged. The list was recently split from the main page. If there are any particular BLP concerns (presumably only for one person still living; this means that the concern can only relate to the inclusion of
834:, this information is a useful part of that page. It elucidates that article's subject matter, gives an idea of real life user's opinions on bathhouses over different eras. I do not see what function it serves when removed from the article which gives it context and meaning.
588:
I must have misunderstood your justification of "cruft" being based on the example of "List of sitcom actors who wear string ties in church" being un-encyclopaedic and so I responded with close counter-examples. I am pleased to see you have shifted your argument to a form of
216:- no objective standard exists as to what constitutes a "regular" at a bath house. How many visits over what time frame make one a "regular"? The article itself points to the problems in trying to objectively quantify someone as a "regular" with its inclusion of
573:: "Historical patrons of gay bathhouses include Oscar Wilde, Rudolf Nureyev ..." That much might be illustrative to those with a burning desire to know the names of celebrities who hung out in gay bathhouses. It doesn't support a standalone article.
1450:"attractive nuisance" is a legal term that, even if it does not have a wikipedia article, is used appropriately here. although you are correct in that such a legal concept is not in place within Knowledge (XXG)'s policies and guidelines, but
1335:- and I emphasize "article" as you're attempting to substitute "list" for my own wording. Again, obviously you don't agree, but that's for the closing admin to sort out; you really don't need to try to rebut every statement anyone makes.
1267:
This AFD was raised for a second time after the first was removed (not by me BTW) and discussion on the talk page recommended. Had this advice been followed then this same discussion would have been conducted in a less confrontational
1207:
It would be genuinely helpful if you could explain the BLP failure in the article, even if just for one case. Which living person and which sources are inadequate would be useful. I would be happy to take it up on the article talk
564:
And if I had launched an argument based on precedent, a rebuttal based on one might have made sense. That being said, no, I don't think that this list is more notable than the examples you give; upon what basis do you think this
992:
helpful as it covers this exact issue. I'm sorry but I can't help but get the impression that the real issue here is some editors are struggling to accept the gay sexual nature of the topic rather than factual compliance with
1523:
1130:. The knitting and bonsai examples are not good examples because neither of those things are contentious, illegal, or particularly notable or uncommon. A famous person attending an illegal and stigmatised venue
1033:
a standalone page. Now, if there are 90 instead of 9, even though the list would still be underinclusive, I can understand the need to have a standalone article. But since there's only 9, I would normally vote
246:
quoted above, a reliable source has been added showing that he was going to gay bathhouses before his visit to
Chariots gay bathhouse on the night of his death. Further discussion should be on the article talk
366:
Just to clarify, by "most" you mean all except one, and that one is backed up with a good quality reliable source? And are you discounting the idea that the lead text can be clarified due to the guidance at
646:. If the rationale for deletion is unspecified BLP concerns then the same arguments should apply to the names and sourced material there. Those who propose deletion here should note that the following
1623:
changed in order to remove the word "famous", there is an open discussion on the talk page with regard to the term "notable" as a further name change is likely better to comply with the guidance of
190:
1359:
Awful list concept. Prurient, perpetually incomplete, unlikely to add value to the encyclopedia. That's not even beginning to consider privacy concerns if anybody living gets added to such a list.
1578:
is that there is no requirement that would mean a list of people has to be restricted to those famous "for" the topic. As you are using examples, a close match to the one you have given here is
286:
where the quote from Time Out seems a perfectly reliable source) it would be helpful if they could be elucidated for a more detailed reply as it is not possible to counter unspecified concerns.
144:
139:
148:
522:, but that scarcely makes it encyclopedic. And despite the citation of the OED, this will remain a desperately subjective notion which smacks more of prurient interest than scholarship.
220:
as a "regular" when the source supporting his inclusion explicitly describes him as a "newcomer". Although most of those currently included are dead, there is also serious potential for
131:
305:
but, honestly, the word "regular" seems a perfectly good one to use. If there is a logical reason to use a different word then I would be happy to move the page. You will note that
771:
Quite aside from that much of the commentary in that RFC was, well, yours, of course you're aware that consensus on
Knowledge (XXG) does not bind future discussions; we don't do
1150:
I protest a perma-nooboid nomination whose only reasons have been completely removed by only a change of article title. Irresponsible and negligent; a waste of WP resources.
1582:
where the criteria is only that the notable person has been teetotal for some part of their lives, not that they are famous "for" being teetotal. As this list is okay, then
177:
99:
94:
103:
224:
issues since labeling someone as a "regular" at a facility for which a primary purpose is to engage in anonymous sex with multiple partners is quite likely defamatory.
1126:
contentious. It was possibly illegal too depending on date and region. Who attended bathhouses, which ones, and under what legal situation, illuminates the subject of
1006:
86:
1189:
for some of the living ones and vague inclusion criteria for the list. This isn't an issue of gay pride or homophobia. This is simply a list with vague criteria.
1251:
I am increasingly concerned at how discussion on this page is changing the original opinions contributed. This AFD was raised without following the guidance of
1276:"Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an administrator, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum."
539:
The cruft argument seems weak if your argument is based on precedent; surely this list is more notable (purely on the basis of general public interest) than
1331:
Asked and answered above; while a sentence such as I've already given makes for a factoid acceptable in a larger article, it doesn't make for a standalone
1313:
Okay, if I take as true "inherently unsalvageable", how can this list be unsalvageable and yet exactly the same list that happens to be embedded in
1546:
Seems a trivial intersection, grouping men together by an extremely minor activity. Why no "List of people that go to the pub"? People notable
277:
With regard to BLP concerns, this list is carefully sourced with good quality published reliable sources. The list has already existed on the
519:
298:
1398:
and partition anything useful into the specific articles. List criteria are nebulous, and there's simply no way to keep it from being an
733:
the page move/title change doesn't alter a thing viz deletion. It's still crufty and not encyclopedic. Check out RGTraynor's comments.
988:
So a rationale for deletion is that someone may edit it in the future and then fail to meet a guideline? You may find the guidance of
1257:"Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD."
654:, concluded that the list was encyclopaedic. I guess the AFD process rather ignores pre-existing RFCs that may have been conducted? —
17:
1071:
use. Nothing to do with the fact that we are talking about "organizations where public gay sex may occur". Just like something like
799:. This was a break-out list from the main and itself has sourcing. I see reason to merge back to main but certainly not to delete.
352:
to a bath house have to be made to qualify someone as a "regular"? What is the objective standard used to determine that exactly?
135:
1636:
1596:
1565:
1536:
1517:
1500:
1482:
1460:
1444:
1426:
1411:
1390:
1369:
1343:
1326:
1306:
1287:
1239:
1217:
1198:
1175:
1159:
1140:
1113:
1085:
1065:
1050:
1018:
979:
964:
And just because the page says it's got to be well-sourced does not mean that people would not add unsourced stuff that offends
928:
893:
871:
850:
815:
783:
766:
742:
721:
700:
677:
663:
633:
606:
581:
556:
530:
505:
478:
447:
425:
404:
380:
361:
342:
319:
256:
233:
205:
68:
544:
127:
1103:
with the name change, the remaining non-trivial coverage can clearly be sourced to reliable sources. with reliable sources,
1222:
Note; Capurro has now been removed from the list whilst the citations are under discussion on the talk page. Consequently,
1432:
880:. We do not need to return it there, it is already there. But for the sake of collating opinions, I guess mine should be
90:
855:
That would seem a reason to merge/redirect as it's not the information that is wrong or unencyclopedic, just misplaced.
1653:
708:
Per Teahot; also, the title problem has been fixed, thus invalidating the major argument for deletion. I don't get the
36:
569:
notable or informative, or that any pertinent information couldn't be merged back into the main article with a single
1526:
is somehow considered "encyclopedic"/"what
Knowledge (XXG) is about" without the benefit of any third party sources,
1317:
is perfectly okay? Surely the same rules apply and the embedded list should be deleted for exactly the same reasons?—
1550:
going to bathhouses should be in the main article, notable people who just happen to go to them do not need listing.
82:
74:
1608:
and should have
Knowledge (XXG) articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future). For example,
302:
1531:
1455:
1421:
1135:
1108:
1652:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1451:
989:
876:
Yes the content is fine. Technically there is no need to merge as the information is currently duplicated in
673:
629:
540:
488:
as partial as I am to a spot of cottaging, I'm not sure I see the encyclopedic value of this article. Also,
738:
501:
1194:
1155:
456:
1632:
1592:
1583:
1440:
1283:
1235:
1213:
1061:
1023:
I will say for the record that I have no problem with gay people whatsoever. None. I'm persuaded that
1014:
762:
659:
602:
552:
376:
338:
315:
252:
201:
1513:
63:
1579:
1399:
1252:
1118:
Per Forum's comment that changed my opinion on the gay bathhouse page: "Attendance at a bathhouse
1628:
1588:
1496:
1436:
1407:
1384:
1367:
1279:
1231:
1209:
1081:
1057:
1046:
1010:
975:
949:
856:
831:
800:
758:
753:
669:
655:
651:
625:
598:
548:
463:
410:
372:
357:
334:
311:
248:
229:
197:
1624:
1575:
1278:
and move this discussion to the article talk page where, in my opinion, it should have started.—
998:
297:
defines this as "doing the same thing often or at uniform intervals". The list could be renamed
1609:
1478:
1171:
734:
717:
497:
270:"no objective inclusion standard as to what constitutes a "regular", possible WP:BLP concerns"
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
368:
306:
1558:
1190:
1151:
889:
846:
696:
401:
400:
concerns. The phrase "regular" is also very subjective and the list will never be complete.
1601:
1417:
1272:
1227:
1186:
1104:
1029:
1024:
994:
965:
941:
908:
709:
514:
493:
436:
397:
221:
1509:
1002:
775:
That being said, a number of people are answering you with their comments in this AfD.
751:
With regard to being unencyclopaedic, perhaps you could point out why the conclusion of
1431:
Please also note that
Jclemens has linked to an album cover, there is no such beast as
1336:
1299:
921:
776:
574:
523:
243:
217:
489:
440:
1492:
1491:
be suitable material for a certain sort of newspaper, but not for an encyclopedia. --
1403:
1379:
1361:
1322:
1314:
1077:
1042:
971:
959:
945:
877:
837:
827:
643:
444:
353:
283:
278:
225:
1474:
1167:
713:
57:
1613:
gender; it's an intersection between "famous people" and "gay bathhouse regulars".
443:
concerns, as well as DJ's point that this list is and always will be incomplete.
165:
120:
1551:
885:
842:
692:
1528:
reliably sourced, real world acts with real social implications certainly are.
754:
Talk:Gay bathhouse#RFC is the list of Famous bathhouse regulars encyclopaedic?
652:
Talk:Gay bathhouse#RFC is the list of Famous bathhouse regulars encyclopaedic?
1604:
says "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability
914:
1473:
Not even close to encyclopedic, screams BLP problems, per User:Jayen466.
1318:
51:
329:
seems a heavy handed way of dealing with "potential" BLP issues for a
624:
to Gay bathhouse (which is where it was to begin with, wasn't it?).
1166:
Sorry if this is a little off-topic, but what's a perma-nooboid?
1646:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
944:
argument is compelling. And defining a "regular" is impossible.
1416:
Note that "likely to be a target of vandalism" not one of the
294:
293:, I was going by the standard dictionary use of the word, the
826:
It is redundant given that this information is copied from
1298:
unsalvageable." That's an appropriate subject for AfD.
191:
list of
Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions
1527:
172:
161:
157:
153:
116:
112:
108:
409:
Please explain which, if any entries are BLP issues.
1226:, with obvious implications for current issues with
520:
List of sitcom actors who wear string ties in church
299:
List of people who have often been to gay bathhouses
268:- This list was put up for deletion on the basis of
911:issues and the impossibility of precise definition
547:
both of which seem to be considered encyclopaedic?—
1271:I would like to propose we follow the guidance of
1073:List of Chinese characters that are pronounced an1
970:Also per the well-reasoned arguments of RGTraynor.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1656:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1224:the number living people on the list is now zero
1007:List of political scandals in the United Kingdom
272:. Responding to the two parts of this challenge:
1508:Get Real. This is not what WP is all about.
1076:oppose making this into a redirect, however.
8:
452:All lists are generally incomplete, we have
836:The original section should remain in the
691:for the definitional reasons given above.
185:
1377:Not encyclopedic, invites BLP problems.
642:Actually this list is still embedded in
189:: This debate has been included in the
128:List of notable gay bathhouse attendees
1587:solve the issue rather than deletion.—
371:not being applicable for some reason?—
125:NOTE:article name has been changed to
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
757:was the wrong consensus to come to?—
962:carries exactly the same material.
648:RFC raised for this exact same list
668:Changed my comment accordingly.
24:
1524:this fluff about fiction castles
712:objection either. It's sourced.
1435:as there is no such guideline.—
1273:Knowledge (XXG):DEL#Discussion
1037:, but as it is already there,
545:List of knitters in literature
83:List of gay bathhouse regulars
75:List of gay bathhouse regulars
1:
1418:criteria for article deletion
830:. As per my comments on that
303:List of gay bathhouse patrons
952:) 01:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
1676:
1637:05:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
1629:Teahot (migrating to Ash)
1597:15:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
1589:Teahot (migrating to Ash)
1566:14:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
1537:03:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
1518:03:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
1501:01:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
1483:18:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
1461:12:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
1445:09:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
1437:Teahot (migrating to Ash)
1427:04:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
1412:02:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
1391:21:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
1370:20:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
1344:18:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
1327:07:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
1307:02:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
1288:14:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
1240:06:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
1218:20:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
1199:19:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
1176:06:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
1160:05:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
1141:04:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
1114:02:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
1086:00:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
1066:11:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
1058:Teahot (migrating to Ash)
1051:13:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
1019:18:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
980:16:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
929:01:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
894:04:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
872:00:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
851:23:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
816:23:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
784:04:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
767:22:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
743:22:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
722:22:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
701:21:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
678:01:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
664:22:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
634:20:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
607:05:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
582:04:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
557:23:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
531:20:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
506:20:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
479:02:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
448:20:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
426:02:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
405:20:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
381:20:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
362:20:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
343:19:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
320:19:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
257:07:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
234:19:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
206:22:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
69:01:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
1649:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
1319:Ash (previously Teahot)
541:List of bow tie wearers
1433:WP:attractive nuisance
462:for that very reason.
242:Note, for the case of
1574:My interpretation of
622:merge & redirect
347:Um, I didn't cite a
1580:List of teetotalers
1533:The Red Pen of Doom
1457:The Red Pen of Doom
1423:The Red Pen of Doom
1400:Attractive Nuisance
1137:The Red Pen of Doom
1110:The Red Pen of Doom
1107:is not an issue.--
1005:. In comparison to
882:keep/merge redirect
832:article's talk page
513:While I agree that
1366:
1249:Comment (proposal)
1610:lists of atheists
1463:
1360:
1255:, in particular:
1122:, many would say
927:
593:rather than just
208:
194:
67:
44:The result was
1667:
1651:
1606:in that category
1584:List of drinkers
1562:
1555:
1534:
1458:
1449:
1424:
1402:for BLP issues.
1387:
1382:
1364:
1340:
1303:
1277:
1262:
1258:
1138:
1111:
926:
924:
918:
912:
868:
862:
812:
806:
780:
578:
527:
475:
469:
461:
455:
422:
416:
195:
175:
169:
151:
124:
106:
60:
54:
49:
34:
1675:
1674:
1670:
1669:
1668:
1666:
1665:
1664:
1660:
1654:deletion review
1647:
1560:
1553:
1532:
1456:
1422:
1385:
1380:
1362:
1338:
1301:
1275:
1260:
1256:
1136:
1109:
958:. A section in
922:
916:
913:
866:
860:
810:
804:
778:
576:
525:
473:
467:
459:
453:
420:
414:
171:
142:
126:
97:
81:
78:
58:
52:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1673:
1671:
1662:
1659:
1658:
1643:
1642:
1641:
1640:
1639:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1569:
1568:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1503:
1485:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1452:WP:NOTCENSORED
1429:
1393:
1372:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1346:
1310:
1309:
1269:
1264:
1263:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1220:
1202:
1201:
1179:
1178:
1163:
1162:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
983:
982:
932:
931:
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
818:
793:
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
787:
786:
773:stare decisis.
746:
745:
725:
724:
703:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
637:
636:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
585:
584:
534:
533:
511:Strong Delete:
508:
483:
482:
481:
430:
429:
428:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
323:
322:
287:
274:
273:
262:
261:
260:
259:
244:Justin Fashanu
237:
236:
218:Justin Fashanu
210:
209:
182:
181:
77:
72:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1672:
1663:
1657:
1655:
1650:
1644:
1638:
1634:
1630:
1626:
1621:
1620:
1619:
1618:
1611:
1607:
1603:
1600:
1599:
1598:
1594:
1590:
1585:
1581:
1577:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1567:
1564:
1563:
1557:
1556:
1549:
1545:
1542:
1538:
1535:
1529:
1525:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1515:
1511:
1507:
1504:
1502:
1498:
1494:
1489:
1486:
1484:
1480:
1476:
1472:
1471:Strong Delete
1469:
1462:
1459:
1453:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1442:
1438:
1434:
1430:
1428:
1425:
1419:
1415:
1414:
1413:
1409:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1394:
1392:
1389:
1388:
1383:
1376:
1373:
1371:
1368:
1365:
1358:
1355:
1354:
1345:
1342:
1341:
1334:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1316:
1315:Gay bathhouse
1312:
1311:
1308:
1305:
1304:
1296:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1285:
1281:
1274:
1270:
1266:
1265:
1254:
1250:
1247:
1246:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1221:
1219:
1215:
1211:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1181:
1180:
1177:
1173:
1169:
1165:
1164:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1146:
1142:
1139:
1134:notable." --
1133:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1112:
1106:
1102:
1099:
1098:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1074:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1031:
1026:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1004:
1000:
996:
991:
987:
986:
985:
984:
981:
977:
973:
969:
967:
961:
960:Gay bathhouse
957:
953:
951:
947:
943:
937:
934:
933:
930:
925:
920:
919:
910:
906:
903:
902:
895:
891:
887:
883:
879:
878:gay bathhouse
875:
874:
873:
870:
869:
863:
854:
853:
852:
848:
844:
841:
839:
838:gay bathhouse
833:
829:
828:Gay bathhouse
825:
824:this article.
823:
819:
817:
814:
813:
807:
798:
795:
794:
785:
782:
781:
774:
770:
769:
768:
764:
760:
756:
755:
750:
749:
748:
747:
744:
740:
736:
732:
729:
728:
727:
726:
723:
719:
715:
711:
707:
704:
702:
698:
694:
690:
687:
686:
679:
675:
671:
670:Exploding Boy
667:
666:
665:
661:
657:
653:
649:
645:
644:Gay bathhouse
641:
640:
639:
638:
635:
631:
627:
626:Exploding Boy
623:
619:
616:
615:
608:
604:
600:
596:
595:Strong Delete
592:
587:
586:
583:
580:
579:
572:
568:
563:
560:
559:
558:
554:
550:
546:
542:
538:
537:
536:
535:
532:
529:
528:
521:
516:
512:
509:
507:
503:
499:
495:
491:
487:
484:
480:
477:
476:
470:
458:
451:
450:
449:
446:
442:
438:
434:
431:
427:
424:
423:
417:
408:
407:
406:
403:
399:
395:
392:
391:
382:
378:
374:
370:
365:
364:
363:
359:
355:
350:
346:
345:
344:
340:
336:
332:
327:
326:
325:
324:
321:
317:
313:
308:
304:
300:
296:
292:
289:For the term
288:
285:
284:Scott Capurro
280:
279:Gay bathhouse
276:
275:
271:
267:
264:
263:
258:
254:
250:
245:
241:
240:
239:
238:
235:
231:
227:
223:
219:
215:
212:
211:
207:
203:
199:
192:
188:
184:
183:
179:
174:
167:
163:
159:
155:
150:
146:
141:
137:
133:
129:
122:
118:
114:
110:
105:
101:
96:
92:
88:
84:
80:
79:
76:
73:
71:
70:
65:
61:
55:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1661:
1648:
1645:
1605:
1559:
1552:
1547:
1543:
1505:
1487:
1470:
1395:
1378:
1374:
1356:
1337:
1332:
1300:
1294:
1268:environment.
1248:
1223:
1182:
1147:
1131:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1100:
1072:
1038:
1034:
963:
955:
939:
935:
915:
904:
881:
864:
858:
835:
821:
820:
808:
802:
796:
777:
772:
752:
730:
705:
688:
647:
621:
617:
594:
590:
575:
570:
566:
561:
524:
510:
485:
471:
465:
457:dynamic list
432:
418:
412:
393:
348:
330:
310:sufficient.—
290:
269:
265:
213:
186:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1493:Simon Speed
1191:Niteshift36
1152:Anarchangel
990:NOTCENSORED
706:Strong Keep
349:dead person
331:dead person
266:Strong Keep
1510:Stellarkid
1339:RGTraynor
1302:RGTraynor
1128:bathhouses
797:Keep/merge
779:RGTraynor
577:RGTraynor
526:RGTraynor
1295:Response:
1253:WP:BEFORE
435:based on
1625:WP:Lists
1404:Jclemens
1078:Tim Song
1043:Tim Song
972:Tim Song
946:Tim Song
840:article.
571:sentence
354:Otto4711
226:Otto4711
178:View log
1475:Bearian
1454:is. --
1333:article
1168:Zazaban
731:Comment
714:Zazaban
396:due to
307:wp:List
291:regular
145:protect
140:history
100:protect
95:history
1602:WP:SAL
1544:Delete
1506:Delete
1488:Delete
1396:Delete
1375:Delete
1357:Delete
1280:Teahot
1259:, and
1232:Teahot
1210:Teahot
1208:page.—
1187:WP:BLP
1183:Delete
1105:WP:BLP
1039:delete
1030:WP:BLP
1025:WP:BLP
1011:Teahot
966:WP:BLP
956:delete
954:Still
942:WP:BLP
936:Delete
909:WP:BLP
905:Delete
886:Format
843:Format
822:Delete
759:Teahot
735:Crafty
710:WP:BLP
693:Drmies
689:Delete
656:Teahot
599:Teahot
562:Reply:
549:Teahot
515:WP:BLP
498:Crafty
494:WP:BLP
486:Delete
445:Powers
437:WP:BLP
433:Delete
398:WP:BLP
394:Delete
373:Teahot
335:Teahot
312:Teahot
249:Teahot
247:page.—
222:WP:BLP
214:Delete
198:Teahot
173:delete
149:delete
104:delete
46:delete
1576:Lists
1420:. --
1035:merge
999:Lists
917:Chzz
620:, or
591:Merge
176:) – (
166:views
158:watch
154:links
121:views
113:watch
109:links
62:) ·
16:<
1633:talk
1593:talk
1514:talk
1497:talk
1479:talk
1441:talk
1408:talk
1323:talk
1284:talk
1236:talk
1214:talk
1195:talk
1172:talk
1156:talk
1148:Keep
1101:keep
1082:talk
1062:talk
1047:talk
1015:talk
976:talk
950:talk
940:The
907:per
890:talk
859:Banj
847:talk
803:Banj
763:talk
739:talk
718:talk
697:talk
674:talk
660:talk
630:talk
618:Keep
603:talk
553:talk
502:talk
492:and
490:WP:N
466:Banj
441:WP:N
439:and
413:Banj
377:talk
369:List
358:talk
339:talk
316:talk
253:talk
230:talk
202:talk
187:Note
162:logs
136:talk
132:edit
117:logs
91:talk
87:edit
64:@122
59:talk
1561:Mod
1554:Yob
1548:for
1530:--
1522:If
1386:466
1363:Ray
1228:BLP
1120:was
1001:or
995:BLP
857:--
801:--
543:or
464:--
411:--
301:or
295:OED
1635:)
1627:.—
1595:)
1516:)
1499:)
1481:)
1443:)
1410:)
1381:JN
1325:)
1286:)
1238:)
1230:.—
1216:)
1197:)
1185:.
1174:)
1158:)
1132:is
1124:is
1084:)
1064:)
1049:)
1041:.
1017:)
1003:RS
997:,
978:)
938:.
923:►
892:)
884:.
867:oi
849:)
811:oi
765:)
741:)
720:)
699:)
676:)
662:)
650:,
632:)
605:)
567:is
555:)
504:)
496:.
474:oi
460:}}
454:{{
421:oi
402:DJ
379:)
360:)
341:)
333:.—
318:)
255:)
232:)
204:)
193:.
164:|
160:|
156:|
152:|
147:|
143:|
138:|
134:|
119:|
115:|
111:|
107:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
66:·
56:·
53:X!
48:.
1631:(
1591:(
1512:(
1495:(
1477:(
1439:(
1406:(
1321:(
1282:(
1234:(
1212:(
1193:(
1170:(
1154:(
1080:(
1060:(
1045:(
1013:(
974:(
968:.
948:(
888:(
865:b
861:e
845:(
809:b
805:e
761:(
737:(
716:(
695:(
672:(
658:(
628:(
601:(
551:(
500:(
472:b
468:e
419:b
415:e
375:(
356:(
337:(
314:(
251:(
228:(
200:(
196:—
180:)
170:(
168:)
130:(
123:)
85:(
50:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.