Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Monkey Bar

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 of the debate was no consensus. bainer (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Monkey Bar

Non notable. If every pub in england were named wikipedia would never load it'd be so large. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 13:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC) (P.S. As Nominator he votes delete automatically-- Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem yo I'll solve it} 00:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC))

Uhh, that's not a nomination. It's a vote. And because AfD is not a vote, a nomination would have been much better. Deary me! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper. Oh, and when there's a proper nomination, I'll enter a proper response. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, nn pub. --Terence Ong 15:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, nicely written article, over 1500 Google hits for "Monkey Bar" + "Newcastle upon Tyne". JIP | Talk 15:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I only see 207.[1] See WP:RS. -- Krash (Talk) 15:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll see your 207, and raise you only 81 outside of Wikipedia.[2] Postdlf 16:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. No importance. -- Krash (Talk) 15:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, just a bar. Ned Wilbury 15:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment Sometimes pubs achieve notability in their own right. I'm not sure this one has. In the last 5 years I only found one mention in Lexis/Nexis European sources, a recent (4 Mar 06) article on the rennovation of Pilgrm Street. FWIW, the explanation of the name Monkey Bar given in the Newcastle Evening Chronicle is different than the one given by the author here. Thatcher131 16:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable pub. Postdlf 16:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep no apparent problems. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. These sorts of significant local landmarks are generally kept. I think the article has fine potential. -- JJay 23:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• No longer abstining, see delete vote below I just made it a proper nomination per Gallagher, so everybody is happy -- Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem yo I'll solve it} 00:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Headdesk. Lookit, AfDs are traditionally kicked off by someone nominating it, explaining why he's nominated it, why the article needs to do, etc. References to deletion policy, page history, What links here, and, of course, Google are common, all making up the rich tapestry that is an argument for the deletion of one of our precious articles. This is a Good Thing; if nothing else, it means that if an article's deleted then someone can look at AfD and understand why (none of this idiotic "nn d" crap). Pointing out that the nominator automatically votes delete is not merely nonsense, but evidence of a terrifying misunderstanding of what *fD is about here. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Retort the nominator makes a perfectly valid point, I assumed you were giving him a hard time about process. He states, "Non notable." Thats all the reason, if the pub actually is NN, that he should need to give. I think that, while my understanding of AfD may be flawed, your understanding of WP:Notability is equally so. Just because he didn't google the bloody thing, or dig around LexisNexis (as two of the voters have done), it doesn't make his deletion listing any less valid. I still refrain from voting as I have no opinion on this article.
      • I disagree. Out of simple respect for the editors who have worked hard in good faith on the material in question, a nom needs to do more than type two letters. Even you modify your statement by saying: "if the pub actually is"...How do we know anything about what the pub "actually is" or the reasons why it does not deserve a place here if the nom is too intellectually lazy to address the question? If that's the best noms can do, they should do something else with their time. -- JJay 10:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm on record as saying "fuck process". The nominator damn well should do a good job of explaining why he thinks an article must be deleted; if he cannot be bothered, then he should not be listing articles for deletion. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete just a bar --MaNeMeBasat 07:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If we can keep articles on stupid cartoon characters that don't even exist.... Jcuk 22:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The Monkey Bar (Market Lane) is one of the few pubs in Newcastle that hasnt been modernised, had its name changed etc... it has more history than I, personally, know of and can be expanded by others... for example Thatcher131 has another historical version of how the pub got its nickname... it seems slightly ironic that it is mentioned in the argument for deletion... whatever... Icehardkiller 12:11, 14 March 2006
  • Note all of IcehardKiller's Edits are to this page and the article in question. -- Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem yo I'll solve it} 17:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Note - yes I (Icehardkiller) wrote the article being discussed. Is the above Note implying that I am not entitled to argue for the article's permanent inclusion? Apologies if I am grasping the wrong end of the stick... and, yes again, all of my Edits are to do with The Monkey Bar article - but whats wrong with that? Finally in response to the original complaint, all the pubs in England are not listed in Wikipedia - but some are, see 'Category:Public houses in the United Kingdom' - if Swatjester's argument was applied to every entry, Wikipedia would be, for the large part, empty. Icehardkiller 20:25, 14 March 2006
    • Note: You most certainly do have a right to vote Icehard, but I am simply of the opinion that the closing admin should know that, similar to 84.68.243.197, you may not have a complete grasp of how WP works -- Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem yo I'll solve it} 23:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Response - no I dont have a complete grasp of how WP works, though what bearing this has on whether the article should be kept or deleted I fail to see - the ony thing I've done is put up (and am subsequently trying to defend) a bit of information about one of the oldest pubs in Newcastle - I am still learning about syntax and how to sign and timestamp edits etc Icehardkiller 09:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I find that what's really important or relevant for an entry isn't what we vaguely define as inspiration, fact or even what it is we do/want to say, recall, regret, or rebel against. No, what's important is the way we say it. Art is all about craftsmanship. Others can interpret craftsmanship as style if they wish. Style and importance is what unites memory or recollection, ideology, sentiment, nostalgia, presentiment, to the way we express all that. It's not what we say but how we say it that matters and how that affects those that read and understand our art. In the end, who are we to judge what anyone else finds relevant unless we have been in their shoes! (previous unsigned comment by User:194.72.35.70 -- Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem yo I'll solve it} 17:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC))
• Sorry, that last comment was from me, bit new to this WP malarky Metalmania 194.72.35.70 10:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (or at least I assume thats what the dude who used the talkpage was voting due to his comment) I agree with the previous view. Who are we to say what's worthy and what's not. If the pub means a lot to enough people, keep it here. Those who say "just a pub" don't know what they're talking about. (Unsigned on the talk page, by 84.68.243.197 (IP's only edit)) (All things in parentheses by, and added by -- Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem yo I'll solve it} 17:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC))
• Delete in lieu of the last set of votes, and due to the fact that, however interesting they may be, historical places are not inherently notable. If we had an article for every building not "having had its name changed," which appears to this pubs saving grace according to keep votes, then we'd have tons of articles about every trivial building in most every major eurpean city and a few American ones. It only yields 11 results when searching for "The Monkey Bar Market Lane" and when searching Monkey Bar newcastle, the first page is entirely composed of the pub's page, a few pub-centric travel guides, and the wikipedia page. This bar is not notable, thus I reiterate, Delete per nom. -- Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem yo I'll solve it} 23:22, 14 March 2006 (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.