Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitchen Bar


 * 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Kitchen Bar

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A local pub, lacking substantial notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as lacking substantial walls, floors, ceiling etc. It has been demolished according to the link. So no pub no article required.--Sting  Buzz Me...   01:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment— This doesn't necessary mean it's nn (not that it isn't). Just because the building no longer exsists doesn't mean it's automatically no longer notable. If this were so, we would have deleted World Trade Center awhile ago, wouldn't we? -- Mizu onna sango15 / 水 女 珊瑚15  02:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok you do have a point there. I'll leave my vote as delete though as I feel this pub is just not notable. The original pub might have had some historical significance? But since it no longer exists the article is basically just advertising the new kitchen?--Sting  Buzz Me...   02:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the connection to the World Trade Center is a chalk-and-cheese comparison. There is a huge difference between a global landmark that was destroyed in a terrorist attack, resulting the deaths of thousands, and an obscure pub that went out of business. Ecoleetage (talk) 11:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But the point still stands that no longer existing is not a valid reason in itself for claiming that a subject isn't notable. Furthermore, the pub isn't out of business, it just had to move. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - The BBC and The Post stories are a lot more than a "passing mentions." A notable business/building no longer existing is not criteria for deletion in any Wikipedia policy or guideline.--Oakshade (talk) 09:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep (I'm the article creator) - the original bar may not exist any more but it had historical significance, as evidenced by the BBC article. Its demolition was also the subject of considerable controversy. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added some more references to the article which hopefully establish notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete demolish. No assertion of notability. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 12:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A quote from Wikipedia:Notability:"A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability". Surely a BBC feature and a whole article in The Observer satify those requirements? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If the article didn't even assert notability it would be under speedy deletion instead of AFD. Notability is asserted if not proven making your vote....well misguided at the very least. Exxolon (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * After all, I found the BBC article convincing, so I choose to keep. Further, what can you say about Mizu onna sango15's argument? Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 06:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Once notable, always notable. Notability has been established by substantial coverage in reliable sources. --Eastmain (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, notability established by sources. Ideally would be expanded to indicate the history before the demolition. --Dhartung | Talk 20:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, notability seems to be established. However this articles does fail to explain why this pub is so notable, and having fixed this in the article may hinder it being nominated for deletion. Arsenikk (talk) 22:41, 17 May 2008 (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.