Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carpenters Arms

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 no consensus. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carpenters Arms[edit]

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

Not sure this article has any place on Wikipedia. It seems to have been originally created by someone with an interest in the surname Carpenter. However, the article itself is about pubs and pub names in general. There's no evidence that "Carpenters Arms" is a particularly important pub name (or at least no more important than any other). There might be bits and pieces here that can be incorporated into the Public house article but, otherwise, time for this one to go (closely followed by the List of Carpenters Arms (UK), I expect). Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – List of pubs named Carpenter Arms in the United Kingdom has also been nominated for deletion by Jrcrin001, which links to this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just look at the list at List of pubs named Carpenter Arms in the United Kingdom and it appears that Carpenter Arms has been used rather frequently over the last few centuries. And that list is well documented. It is also unique in that when a Carpenter Coat of Arms was reinstated, that a lawsuit resulted in the use of the name Carpenter Arms. It meets WP:GNG in my humble opinion.Jrcrin001 (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I added the AFD citation to the list that supports this article. Both should be considered together. Jrcrin001 (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notability basic guidelines recited here:
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

1) "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
2) "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
3) "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
4) "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.
5) "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer/Cleanup listing#Articles that are subject of discussion of deletion. Jrcrin001 (talk) 01:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the list, delete Carpenters Arms which at first sight I suspected was a spoof but is probably just really badly done. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. In July 2010 the list was separated from the article. Maybe a recombine needs to be done? Jrcrin001 (talk) 00:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both. This is a well documented example of a common traditional name. It may not be anthroponymy, but it's still significant to people studying the development of names in commerce. bd2412 T 00:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed: Changed the header back to ===[[Carpenters Arms]]===. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pub names. This is one of a series of frequently used pub names, such as Royal Oak, Red Lion, Bricklayers Arms, Kings Head, Queens Head, The Stag, etc. Much of the article is fluff, and not specific to the pub name: "The Alehouses helped create the "Public Houses" - the first true British Pubs in an effort to appeal to a wider audience and gain greater acceptance. Prior to this the pubs (not taverns) appealed to local tastes and often were the fronts of actual homes. These were rather ramshackled affairs appealing to occupational men." "Over time, many "Carpenter Arms" were converted into other businesses and even private homes. Some establishments date from the 1600s and others reside in more modern buildings." "Carpenter Arms" can be easily changed into "pubs" in that statement. Remove the non-specific information, and we are left with the Name conflict paragraph as being relevant to the name. This can easily be incorporated into the Pub names article where it would be very useful. The WP:MERGEREASONs are 3. Text - there is limited scope for expansion because the topic is the pub name, and once it has been established how the name has come about (a paragraph), all that is left is to list the many notable and non-notable pubs with that name, which is not the purpose of an article; and 4. Context - the subject is best understood in the context of an informative article on pub names in general, this would also help prevent 1. Duplicate - repeating general information about the development of pubs and pub names. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking more closely into the Name conflict paragraph - that is useful information for all pub names which end in Arms as the ruling related to all such pub names, not just the Carpenters Arms. It could be added to Pub_names#Heraldry during a merge. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The list is not helpful, but list articles are a law unto themselves. I would hate to see a spate of pub name lists, and I do question the value of such a long indiscriminate list (surely enough to say: There are around 200 pubs with the name Carpenters Arms in the UK). But once a list has been created, and there are pretty pictures, the community is often reluctant to have the list deleted. I suspect the consensus here will be to keep the list as it's doing no harm, but I question its usefulness, and its existence will encourage and support the creation of other such lists, so I am !voting to delete the list. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure A huge amount of primary media dating back to the 1800s or before (pub signs, mostly) suggest that "carpenters arms" is a cultural institution with a history that means something. This wiki article dates to 2010 and List of pubs named Carpenter Arms in the United Kingdom is a more recent fork from this article. Neither of these concepts cite sources which meet WP:GNG, but considering the list especially, if WP:GNG were met then the list content in that article would be mostly acceptable to keep and the pictures are great.

I expect that sometime in the past 300 years or so something has been written about what an establishment called "Carpenter's Arms" is supposed to do. The concept likely has origins in guild systems and now is part of pub culture in a legacy of cultural change. I am trying to think of another situation on Wikipedia in which there was a lot of evidence that a cultural institution had spread throughout a country to be established in dozens or hundreds of building establishments over centuries, but there be no media record of the concept. I am not sure what to do. This concept does not meet WP:GNG based on the evidence presented but it strikes me as odd that no evidence exists talking about the history of this institution. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please take a look at and compare an earlier version of this article to the present. See here. Anything useful? Jrcrin001 (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 18:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Section added regarding Carpenters Arms trade tokens with reference. See: Carpenters Arms#Trade tokens Jrcrin001 (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That section is entirely about a single pub in Marlow. It could probably be made into a Carpenters Arms, Marlow article about the pub, but doesn't really say anything about the general subject. Sionk (talk) 17:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Single articles on different Carpenters Arms are better than one general topic? Are such limited articles would be quickly be listed for deletion. Jrcrin001 (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of separate articles about notable pubs. Sionk (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of List-related deletion discussions. Jrcrin001 (talk)|1000]] 17:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How many times will this be "re-listed" when there is no clear consensus? I suggest we leave the minor article as is and leave the list as is. This AfD should be closed. Jrcrin001 (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2015 (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.