Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corkman Irish Pub, Carlton


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Corkman Irish Pub, Carlton
An irish-themed pub located in Melbourne, Australia which isn't notable for anything of an encyclopedic nature. Was previously listed for deletion in March 2006 and kept, which I noticed after this listing at AfD. Still, I don't see any encyclopedic significance in this hotel. -- Longhair\talk 08:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete -- Longhair\talk 08:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Longhair\talk 09:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - the first AfD was a fairly overwhelming keep as a historic hotel and building in Melbourne, and I don't see that anything's changed since then. --Canley 10:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Perhaps nothing has changed. That said, there's 50+ hotels in my home town of Geelong (an hour from Melbourne) that are "historical", ie, constructed during the 1800's. I'd not dream of ever creating an article on any of them unless something of note surfaced about their history. They're simply hotels. Wikipedia is not a pub guide. -- Longhair\talk 10:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If it's true, the relationship of the pub to the local area and especially to the Carlton and United Brewery would make it reasonably notable I should think, at the very least at a local level. I don't get why this article has been nominated for deletion again after already surviving one vote - that's not on if there is no additional reason why deletion is warranted (unless supporting sources can be shown to say that the article's contents are bogus... in which case deletion is more than warranted). So please tell us - why delete it? I don't think people here value local history very highly. Yes, the article needs a cleanup, but deletion, no. I'm sick of people nominating articles again just because they don't like something on here. Can you please outline why this should be deleted now when the first AfD debate held an overwhelming consensus? (JROBBO 10:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC))
 * Comment: I've told you once in the nomination, but I'll tell you again as you've obviously missed it. "I don't see any encyclopedic significance in this hotel". The wording in the article makes a claim that isn't supported, like "probably aided in the consolidation of the brewery". Probably could mean it's probably true, or probably not. We're not here to decide. Ignoring those claims in the article and judging the rest, to me it reads like a pub with no claim to notability whatsoever, and Wikipedia is not a pub guide. -- Longhair\talk 10:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing against "Wikipedia is not a pub guide". It's not worth it if it were just an article about a pub. It well may be, but you have not established that. I am asking you about those claims, as it is these that establishes notability of the pub, not the rest of the article. I have said that there MAY be merit in examining the claims about the connection with the CUB Brewery. What you have given on this AfD is merely your own opinion that "I don't think it's encyclopedic." However that is not a reason for deletion on WP if it is your opinion that it is encyclopedic. Did you do any research on the pub besides running a Google search and check whether it was worth deleting or whether the historical claims had any notability at all? I gather you haven't. All I am asking is that you establish a definite claim to non-notability before you nominate an article for deletion that has already survived one debate. If there is no evidence that it is not notable it shouldn't be renominated. I think there are a lot of worthy articles with local history that are deleted just because people in another state or country have never heard of them. International interest is not the only thing served on this site, you know. (JROBBO 05:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC))
 * You might have missed my comment below: "Suggestions that it has high historical value appear to be unsupportable, as it does not appear on the Victorian Heritage Register or the Victorian Heritage Inventory." I think that qualifies as the kind of research you're talking about. Snottygobble 05:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Why do I need to do the research? Evidence of any notability should already be included in the article. If there's anything notable about this hotel that surfaces, then recreate the article, including evidence of that notability. It's that simple. For now, it has no notability whatsoever IMHO, just unsupported claims. I'm all for local history - but not when it's just a random collection of unproven facts. As someone else has already said below, "not a lot of thought went on in the last AfD", and I agree. At least this time around we're giving the article some scrutiny - and still, no evidence whatsoever of notability has surfaced. -- Longhair\talk 05:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am with JROBBO on this one. We will never know whether our learned friends put much thought into the last AfD as we only have their comments to go on. Either way though the outcome was clear - 2 delete vs 15 keep. I think we are treading on dangerous ground if articles can be re-nominated AfD (when there has been no material change to content and the information has not been disproven) just because we don't agree with the previous outcome. This seems like double jeopardy. If, as the article suggests, this is an Australian establishment with 150 years of heritage then it has local history value even if it doesn't get the right Google hits or it isn't listed on the VHR. I do agree however that some further work may be neede to uncover notability and a rename is required for it to come up to standard. amitch 14:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Please see WP:CCC. AFD is a verification and quality control process for encyclopedia articles not a criminal trial for human beings, so double jeopardy doesn't apply. Bwithh 22:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - I just don't see it as notable enough for an article. --Roisterer 10:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - The first AfD seemed to build consensus that this building has local importance. I believe establishments like this are part of the historical fabric of inner city suburbs and would be of interest to readers. I do think the article needs some work (as per WP:LOCAL), references, a picture and a redirect to Carlton Inn (which it was called for 150 years). amitch 13:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as in last AfD. Billy Blythe 15:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete as per nom. Very limited discussion in the previous afd - arguments in favour were that the pub has a website and gets some google hits; it's quite old; and let's believe what the article says at inflated face value. I don't see any evidence of encyclopedic notability or even claim to encyclopedic notablility. The claims to fame boil down to 1) it was one of the first pubs existing outside the city centre in Melbourne. No claim here even that it might be one of the very first pubs in Melbourne. No verifiable evidence given that this building is historically notable for its architecture. 2) a theory about the connection with Carlton beer and the suburb Carlton which the article states has been disproved 3) Speculation ("probably") introduced as historical fact that the pub "aided" the early business of a local brewery (I doubt that one brewery can survive just depending on one pub, and even if the relationship was that crucial, this is hardly encyclopedic). 4) the first pub owner was a postman at the university (not notable) 5) a local football club held their reunion in the pub in 1995 (not notable) 6) students and staff at the local university like it (not notable) Bwithh 15:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn pubcruft. Eusebeus 16:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You say you live in Montreal... can you please tell us what you know about the non-notability a Melbourne pub? (JROBBO 10:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC))
 * Delete nn pub. As much as I enjoy drinking, there doesn't really seem to be anything particularly notable about this place. Lankiveil 00:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC).
 * Delete. Per Eusebius. Rebecca 06:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. 117 ghits, most of which are pub guides that simply list the address. Not alot of thought went on in the last AFD, as far as I can tell. Ultra-Loser Talk 07:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Suggestions that it has high historical value appear to be unsupportable, as it does not appear on the Victorian Heritage Register or the Victorian Heritage Inventory. Snottygobble 00:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete --Peta 02:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. A friend of mine, sadly now deceased, used to manage the place.  But that doesn't make it notable either. --Robert Merkel 13:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.