Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert's Lounge

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. Big Dom 14:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert's Lounge[edit]

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

Delete - Not notable for article by itself, It is mentioned in other articles, does not need it's own page --俄国 (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There does seem to be enough secondary coverage to warrant an article. [1][2][3]. I can't verify at the moment, but there might be at least an entire chapter about this lounge in the book Mafia Headquarters:The Motion Lounge, Gemini Lounge, Robert's Lounge, Bergin Hunt and Fish Club, Ravenite Social Club--Oakshade (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Non-notable bar lacking WP:RS of substance. The items Oakshade points out are only "trivial" mentions of the location and a brief listing in a Mafia "tour" book. The only notability is inherited from it former owner(s). In addition, the "book" Oakshade cannot verify appears to be a 24 page pamphlet. ttonyb (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The examples cited as "trivial" in WP:GNG are "directory listings" or "passing mentions." The coverage in the sources are way beyond the scope of either of those.--Oakshade (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – WP:GNG neither mentions "directory listing" or "passing mention". What is does say is, "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content." The cited sources do not meet this criteria. ttonyb (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG in fact states "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" and in examples of "trivial" coverage WP:GNG states: "Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian.) is plainly trivial." It does no longer state "directory listing." The coverage is of this is way beyond "passing mention".--Oakshade (talk) 03:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Been closed for a long time. The covergage mentions the place in passing mostly.--Antwerpen Synagoge (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/אֶפְרָתָה. -- DQ (t) (e) 20:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to James Burke (gangster) or Lufthansa heist. Very nearly notable, but not quite there. The last book listed above is published by Books LLC, who get their material from Wikipedia, so it can't be used to establish notability. The other three cover the Lounge, but not really in enough detail to meet WP:SIGCOV as I read. Google News gives a few reasonable links such as this, but it all feels like passing mentions in pieces about Burke or the heist rather than in-depth coverage about the place itself. However, the sources are enough to demonstrate that this does deserve a few sentences in a larger article. Alzarian16 (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A gNews search turned up this 1979 Calgary Herald story which itself is from the New York Times regarding the Lufthansa heist. In that story, Robert's Lounge is featured prominently as a connecting point for the heist planners. The lounge appeared in another Calgary Herald story bylined as from UPI in 1980, which focused primarily on the lounge and the uncovering of human remains in excavations conducted in the basement. Though certainly connected with Burke and the Lufthansa heist articles, Robert's Lounge appears to have sufficient reliable, third-party sources to warrant a separate article. The article should be kept (and it could use improvement, of course). Geoff ^{Who, me?} 17:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – With all due respect, the mentions are all incidental to the articles. The mentions are trivial and the sources do not address the subject directly in detail. ttonyb (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above WP:GNG defines "trivial" as a "passing mention" in a work about another topic. The coverage cited goes far beyond a "passing mention." --Oakshade (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I fail to see how you can make the leap from the statement in the WP:GNG reference to state that this article's references are adequate to support notability. Regardless, as I stated above," What is does say (WP:GNG) is, "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content." The cited sources do not meet this criteria." ttonyb (talk) 04:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no leap as WP:GNG states very clearly: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" and it defines "trivial" as a "passing mention." If you'd like to change WP:GNG to have a different example of "trivial" coverage, then you need to make your case on the WP:N talk page, not invent your own definition in an AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 04:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Rather than accuse me of trying to change WP:GNG and referring me to its talk page, I suggest we try to stay on point. (Simply put, setting up a straw man argument does not advance either my point or yours.) So here are the examples of the text used as references:

"...and it was not an accident he was in Robert's lounge."
"Robert's lounge has long been the informal headquarters of crime captain Paul Vario..."
"...both drank at Robert's lounge..."
"...the bar formerly known as Robert's lounge, was a hangout for..."
"Manri was reportly a member of the Robert's lounge gang."

Sorry, but I do not see how these are significant coverage. My best to you. ttonyb (talk) 04:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 15:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As no clear consensus seems to be able to be reached I would pressume a No consensus decision for now and re-evaluation in a few month would be appropriate.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I am not sure how you can say that. There has not been an argument that supports notability using acceptable reliable souces. As pointed out in numerous examples above ("...and it was not an accident he was in Robert's lounge." ) the references associated with the article are trivial. This is not a vote, but a discussion of notability and how it is supported using acceptable reliable sources. Please explain to me how the examples above are "non-trivial". ttonyb (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with you that the sources aren't enough to base an entire article on, but a no consensus close would probably be justified. If that does occur, we could consider opening a merge discussion on the article's talk page since the topic might be better covered as part of another article. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alzariuan16 basically described by thoughts exactly.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2011 (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.