Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swagman Restaurant

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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swagman Restaurant[edit]

fails WP:CORP, hardly any third party coverag [1], nothing really notable about this restaurant. being burned down unless it got major national coverage doesn't make it notable, businesses burn down all the time. LibStar (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Extremely well known Melbourne landmark, the destruction of which was national news. The restaurant is notable, as there has never been any other restaurant really like it in Australia. This is true in terms of the scale of the restaurant, in terms of the amount and penetration of television advertising (the jingle was at the time known word for word by nearly all Melbournians, and would still be very widely known today), and in terms of the calibre of visiting artists (see entry: while of course there may be venue in Las Vegas and elsewhere that have far more notable artists attending, the point is that there has never been anything like it in Australia). Of course, this notability firstly occurred at a time prior to the internet, but the notability is certainly there, as all Melbournians who lived through that period know. This is precisely the kind of entry that should be kept, because it is significant and notable history that Wikipedia, as opposed to other encyclopedias, does have the capacity to record. Article is well-sourced to major national newspapers, and meets all policy requirements. BCST2001 (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

very widely known today' then if would follow you can find current reliable sources that show this. LibStar (talk) 02:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to me to be notable based on coverage and significance in major city. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per BCST2001. --Russavia ^Dialogue 00:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 00:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The world of reliable sources did not suddenly burst into being with the invention of the World Wide Web! The restaurant was a social and cultural institution in Melbourne for many years (..."the smorgasbord that we're famous for"!). The article already has multiple, reliable sources asserting its significance and a trip to the library would find many more. Where in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines does an article topic require "major national coverage" anyway? (Personal note: A close friend of mine had planned her 18th birthday party for the venue in 1991, which then had be to cancelled as it burnt down two weeks before the date :-(... )-- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment currently the reference focuses on the fire and I believe that is WP:NOTNEWS, I'm not expecting web references but people need to show evidence of significant coverage as per WP:CORP. the article makes a number of claims without being backed up. LibStar (talk) 02:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BCST2001 and Mattinbgn. Bidgee (talk) 12:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.