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. - Mailer Diablo 20:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balmain Hotel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Contested prod. The article is on a former Australian pub that traded for two years. It gives no indication as to why it is notable. Nuttah68 07:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, incidental coverage of a subject by one secondary source is not sufficient to establish notability. --Oxymoron⁸³ 07:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm not even seeing a claim of notability. It closed 160 years ago, and doesn't seem any more notable than any other failed pub. All ghits appear to be for an actual hotel with the same name. Horrorshowj 08:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable pub. Keb25 08:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 10:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per oxy. Twenty Years 13:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- no claims of notability. - Longhair\^talk 10:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This pub could be as notable as Mzoli's, but without that information in the article, we'll never know. The book cited as a source might explain the significance of the pub, but that information isn't in the article either. This article should be deleted unless it's expanded and some claim to notability is made. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak delete, this article is about a 1840s establishment in a settlement that was only 50 years old, so sources will not be readily found and ghits are pretty silly. It could well have been the first pub in Balmain, and the building most probably existed for decades after and may even still be upright. Sadly the article doesnt make a claim to fame. As the initial contributor Amitch (talk · contribs) appears to be on a spell (probably due to having many of their contributions deleted), I have notified them via email. John Vandenberg 13:02, 26 September 2007 (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.