Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roadmender (nightclub)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) [Belinrahs|talktome⁄ ididit] 17:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Roadmender (nightclub)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I can't find significant coverage for this nightclub. Joe Chill (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, and you're not likely to with a search term that specific, because the venue's not just a nightclub. It's better to search for 'Roadmender -wikipedia' by itself, which returns around 42,000 hits on google.co.uk.  Hope this helps! Matthew (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I did your suggestion and I couldn't find anything that would make it pass WP:CORP. Joe Chill (talk) 00:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Using this Google News Archive search, I found a number of sources about Roadmender. See this article, this article, this article, and this article from BBC, as well as this article and this article from Northampton Chronicle & Echo. Notability is fully established. Cunard (talk) 06:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Local news doesn't show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 12:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you back that statement Joe~? I remember a similar claim for a local newspaper in Smallville somewhere, and it was challenged, but not for local news per se that find way into RS. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If local news showed notability, every business, band, etc. could have an article. Which you're fine with because you only care about verifibility. Joe Chill (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that a personal opinion, or can you back it? Power.corrupts (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I've seen in most AfDs. Asking me to back it up is like asking me to find links that say that all high schools are notable, all species are notable, all colleges are notable, or all villages are notable. My second post is a fact. The main times that I see people say that local news is alright is when it is used by people that are like "It's verified". Joe Chill (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with local coverage, as long as the publications are from reputable sources. In this situation, there are ample sources in two reputable publications. WP:GNG is met, so I believe that this article should be kept. Cunard (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really should. Joe Chill (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If a topic were to receive only one article from a local newspaper, I would vote "delete". However,  this topic has received six articles from two reputable publications. Therefore, in my opinion, this article should be kept.   Cunard (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So you should say "I think it should" or something like that. I know that I shouldn't correct you, but that bugs me for some reason. Joe Chill (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If I write "it should be kept", I'm stating my opinion about the matter. I don't need to prefix it with "I think" because my opinion is implied whenever I comment in a deletion discussion. However, per your concern, I have added "I believe that" to the comment. Cunard (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep WP:LOCAL is an essay, WP:LOCALINT a failed proposal. The relevant rule is not one requiring non-local sources, the rule is requiring sources that do not indiscriminately list everything, and do not   contain PR, rather than genuine independent 3rd party  reporting. Tol determine this, one has to look at the actual sources presented. The multiple BBC local articles cited above are more than PR,   not an indiscriminate directory, provide substantial coverage, and explicitly indicates notability.    DGG ( talk ) 21:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as per DGG. In addition, since the GNG is satisfied, passing/failing WP:CORP is no more relevant than passing/failing WP:ATHLETE. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2009 (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.