Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rovers Return Inn


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Rovers Return Inn

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Article lacks verifiable citations, having only two total for several pages of text. It contains predominantly original research in the form of fans watching the show and writing here their conclusions about the inn. Most importantly, the article lacks any indication of real world notability for this fictional establishment, much less sources to back up such a claim if there were one. -- Selket Talk 22:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Phil Bridger (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Phil Bridger (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * And if the article said something like that with a discussion of its significance in the real world (with multiple, independent, reliable sources), I would not have nominated it. Instead the article has in-universe history that starts: "The Rover's Return (with an apostrophe) was opened in 1902, on the newly built Coronation St (1902 being Coronation year for Edward VII, hence its name)," as just an example. This article belongs on a fan site, not an encyclopedia. -- Selket Talk 15:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - nom is right that article is poorly introduced and poorly referenced. However these are matters for editing, not grounds for deletion. The rules for notability are that sources exist, not that editors have troubled to include them. The Coronation Street pub is certainly notable. (Daily) Telegraph. Globe and Mail. A search for "Rovers Return" (without "Inn") coupled with "Coronation Street" gets many more News hits, by the way. Mirror. Independent. The Sun. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - extremely notable British TV institution, has even been the subject of an entire dedicated book published by a mainstream publisher: . I agree, though, that the article needs a lot of work..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge / redirect to Coronation Street - I can't find any obvious references in reliable sources. I have done a search for "rovers return" and the majority of the hits are football related (ie: a footballer returning to a club such as Blackburn Rovers). There is also another, real, Rovers Return Inn in Ghana, which seems to get more hits. While I can't dispute that the Rovers Return is one of the most well known fictional pubs in the UK (only the Queen Vic in Eastenders comes close), there doesn't appear to be enough notability for it to stand on its own. -- Ritchie333  (talk)  14:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And what about the book linked by ChrisTheDude, and these 622 books? Phil Bridger (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - it's the most famous fictional pub, so is of significance.—A bit iffy (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep -- I do not watch Coronation Street, but it is a popular and very long-running ITV soap opera. I understand there is even a tourist attraction, related to the soap.  It would be helpful if fact (about the alleged precursor or inspiration) and fiction (from the soap) were more clearly separated.  In view of the prominence of the series, the article is probably justified in existing.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2012 (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.