Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ambrose Hotel

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. Cirt (talk) 05:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ambrose Hotel[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find no evidence of notability at all, one of many thousands of pubs in the UK? Fails WP:N. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 13:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't the major problem. The problem is that the article is full of non-refrenced. Without more specifics (date, page no) "Cumbria Library Service Newspapers Archive" and "North West Evening Mail" are meaningless. The inflation calculator is OR. So all we've got is the claim it is mentioned in "The Victorian public house" (again no page number) and a website. Can we get any more sources?--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I managed to make a couple of the refs a little more specific. ukexpat (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sure that we could find refs on most pubs and hotels in the UK, however that surely does not mean that we want/require an article on each of them? Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 10:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If those references demonstrate notability, yes. – ukexpat (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course, I'm sure that we all understand that, however in this case there is no claim to notability and no refs that illustrate notability? Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 19:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that the nominator has misunderstood the meaning of "Notability" in Wikipedia. Please read WP:GNG and then state here which of the five requirements for notability the article fails to meet. -Arb. (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that I do understand WP:GNG and this pub fails. The refs in this article in no way are evidence of notability or of satisfying WP:GNG. The first is a small local website that indicates a couple of sale details for the pub, no more no less, the second one is not an online ref so we are unable to view it, the third is not about the pub at all, the next is a local piece that is in actual fact more of an advertising promo' and the last is a book review of a book that looks at victorian pubs in general and makes no mention of this pub/hotel. Thus we are left with evidence that the pub exists and has some history and that it has been advertisied in a local paper advertorial. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 17:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A historic building, now with a couple of good, detailed references.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbus Driver (talk • contribs)
Delete Not enough outside coverage to distinguish it from thousands of other hotels in oldish buildings. (Heck, in Britain this building might count as a relative newcomer, "only" 150 years old!) Google search provides only directory listings, travel sites, blog reviews, etc. - no actual coverage. In fact there is a similarly named hotel in Santa Monica that generates more ghits than this one does. --MelanieN (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep. Historic building, historic content, clearly notable, passes WP:N, and is even well sourced. If there are thousands of such buildings, we'll cover them all. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Just another pub/hotel. No real sources outside of a article citing a 2-1 happy hour. Merge to Happy hour?
Delete not notable and not that old for England, would really need to be a lot older and perhaps a listed building to be notable. MilborneOne (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2010 (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.