Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diggers Bar, Hamilton


 * 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. v/r - TP 03:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Diggers Bar, Hamilton

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Possible hoax. Non-notable bar apparently listed on the basis of the fact that a paranormal group meets there once a month. Extended quote does not seem to appear to be in reference given. What real notability the bar may have is probably best summarized by and being a small venue for notable touring musicians, but I don't think it's enough. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.  Logan Talk Contributions 12:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete. Frivolous entry. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 18:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a hoax but certainly non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete- NN - Notice that somebody is "ghosting" articles on the NZ paranormal - SimonLyall (talk) 06:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep reference 1, which demonstrates that the topic has received media coverage, clearly states the extended quote. WP:AGF on Stuartyeates here, but I don't think they could've read the whole article to not see it. Quantum Foundation has also received media coverage even if not particularly well-known outside of their locale. Furthermore, the nominator only adds to the weighting on the topic, by showing an article, (EVEN MORE media coverage here) about the building being listed a historical places trust (and even though WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, other such buildings have their own articles for a reason, historic places trust buildings in New Zealand of category I or II are notable historic buildings., such a status is not just given out to every building simply for being old, but because it has historical significance on at least a national level. The nominator's argument further condradicts itself by admitting the area as a well-known bar and venue for notable touring musicians. And of course, any arguments for deleting the article on the basis of being a paranormal topic are invalid under WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. There wouldn't be a Wikiproject Paranormal if such articles were not welcome on Wikipedia. This should never have been brough to AfD, much less been prodded.-Laughing lion of loudness (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (a) Page added to the paranormal wikiproject, as per Laughing lion of loudness. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (b) Was historic places trust buildings in New Zealand of category I or II are notable historic buildings a quote? Do you have a source for this claim? I've checked both wikipedia and google and I'm not finding anything. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (c) I don't believe the nomination contradicts itself. I believe the nomination attempts a good faith presentation of the relevant facts. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (d) I have now found which would seem to support an article of the name Office of the Waikato District Hospital and Charitable Aid Board or similar. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well then your asking to rename and remodel not to delete. And to adress another claim, your "good faith presentation of the relevant facts" proved media coverage of the topic. Also, it has the distinction of being claimed in the media to be the most haunted location of a city. If you are ignoring that fact, I suggest you read WP:IDON'TLIKEIT.-Laughing lion of loudness (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Delete this article, recreate under Office of the Waikato District Hospital and Charitable Aid Board (Former), and replace haunting section with history of original building. red dog six  (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We can have an section of the history of the building too, but as far as removing the haunting section, I encourage you to read WP:IDON'TLIKEIT as it may be applicable. Arguments or other related edits made simply because you personally might not like something is not a policy-supported way to edit the encyclopedia. If you would like a source of information that only includes topics that you personally like, create your own website. Wikipedia is not biased to an individual editor's personal tastes.-Laughing lion of loudness (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Instead of assuming I am falling prey to WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, I suggest you read WP:AGF and apply that to your arguments. I light of my not providing a reason for my comments, you would have been off asking why rather than assuming a bad faith or ignorance on my part.  The reason I suggest the haunting section be eliminated is simply there is limited support for the validity of that statement and certainly no proof of its existence. In fact the article you refer to is mostly from a skeptics point of view.  Two short paragraphs do not make it significant coverage.  The other reference in the article only points to an event being held at the "reputedly haunted" bar.  Again, individually or combined they do not provide significant coverage to support a haunted section.   red dog six  (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ugh that's entirely the issue there IS proof of it's existence, check the map on the page. Also, I suggest that YOU read WP:AGF instead of asking me too. It should be no surprise to anyone that I made the article out of good faith and whether the page should be kept or not, it is highly uncivil of you to be rude and assume that I am assuming things. On that note, see WP:CIVILITY and don't just assume that people are always just assuming things. Thank you and have a nice day. :)-Laughing lion of loudness (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)21:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin and reminder to other editors It is important to not forget that Articles for deletion explains that the concensus of this process is reached by the validity of the arguments, not by a majority vote.-Laughing lion of loudness (talk) 01:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have created Office of the Waikato District Hospital and Charitable Aid Board (Former) as per red dog six 's correction of my suggestion. It shares no content and no sources with the article under discussion here, but it does use the sources I have uncovered during this discussion. I am confident that there are more references in paperspast, but searching to find them is hard work. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Very Nice!!! red dog six  (talk) 03:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment I'm not worried anymore what happens to the page being discussed. The important thing is, Diggers Bar is at least mentioned in the Charitable Aid article to keep in line with policy of mentioning the most notable bars on Wikipedia.-Laughing lion of loudness (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'd just like to go on record as saying that Diggers is a great bar. I drank there at least semi-regularly while enrolled in a PhD at the nearby Waikato University. Alas, see WP:ILIKEIT. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not seeing widespread coverage that would show notability for the bar or paranormal club, according to WP:GNG. The building seems notable and historic—kudos to Stuartyeates for creating Office of the Waikato District Hospital and Charitable Aid Board (Former). — First Light (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2011 (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.