Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flapper and firkin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:31, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Advertising. Reads like a copyvio or a press release. RickK 07:43, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete --SilasM 08:25, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, Inter 13:21, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: It's not that it's necessarily advertising, but rather it's an article on a pub. For this to be encyclopedic, the pub needs to be really significant, singular, and a leader. There is no evidence that this is the Hammersmith Paladium or Der Rathskeller. A pub that has rock shows. Geogre 13:54, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Interestingly, it's neither. It's just true. (84.9.90.192 10:12, 2005 Jan 30 according to history Uncle G 17:39, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC))
- Merge and redirect with an article on the Firkin Brewery: all their pubs are given similar names and a list of such would appear notable to an encyclopedia, but don't include reviews because they're pretty much all the same. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 15:04, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- This is littered with peacock terms and even lists the prices of the drinks, for goodness' sakes! This is an advertisement, pure and simple. Pay Google for your placed advertisements, like everyone else does. Delete. Uncle G 17:39, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable enough, advertisement, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:31, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Optionally drop something in Firkin Brewery (if correct), as Francs2000 indicated. —Daelin 01:37, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Don't Delete It is a good article about a very famous (locally) pub. Many of the articles on this site would not fit in an actual paper bound encylopaedia. If you think the inclusion of prices is an advert, take them out. No need to rip into someone's work for it though. CiderDaemon 15:12, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- (81.86.84.112 15:15 31 Jan 2005 according to page history -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 15:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC))
- that was me, CiderDaemon. I'm not sure why it doesn't work
- Well, 81.86.84.112, logging in would help. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 00:40, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- lol, cheers
- Well, 81.86.84.112, logging in would help. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 00:40, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- that was me, CiderDaemon. I'm not sure why it doesn't work
- (81.86.84.112 15:15 31 Jan 2005 according to page history -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 15:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC))
- Thank you. I think it's pretty strange how unwilling people are to permit accurate information being put up here...I mean if it was packed with lies and badly typed, I could understand the complaints. It's not taking up space required for more scholarly entries, I tried to make the entry dryly humourous, and if people are interested in it, what's the problem?
- (84.9.90.192 18:56 31 Jan 2005 according to page history -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 15:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC))
- Delete. Firkin pubs are definitely not notable! They are a commercial chain of pretty un-unique proportions. Moreover there are, and have been, many more pubs in the Midlands of England which are far more worthy of inclusion than this one. (eg Barbarella's, The Golden Eagle, Bogarts, The Railway etc..) And yet even they are not included nor do they really deserve to be... --Marcus22 14:18, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I really don't understand this attitude of certain things not 'deserving' to be included. I mean, surely the ideal encylopedia would have information on absolutely everything and anything imaginable! Your normal encylopedia has issues of physical size, and the time its authors must take to research and write an article,- things must be limited, so the concept of 'deserving' inclusion is relevant. Neither of these restrictions apply to Wikipedia, so what's the fuss? Why are people so desperate for an article to get deleted? And, even if you don't see the logic in what I just said, if the Slayer song 'Angel of Death' warrants it's own, multi-paragraph, entry, practically anything does.
- (84.9.64.83 19:08 2 Feb 2005 according to page history -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 18:57, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC))
- I really don't understand this attitude of certain things not 'deserving' to be included. I mean, surely the ideal encylopedia would have information on absolutely everything and anything imaginable! Your normal encylopedia has issues of physical size, and the time its authors must take to research and write an article,- things must be limited, so the concept of 'deserving' inclusion is relevant. Neither of these restrictions apply to Wikipedia, so what's the fuss? Why are people so desperate for an article to get deleted? And, even if you don't see the logic in what I just said, if the Slayer song 'Angel of Death' warrants it's own, multi-paragraph, entry, practically anything does.
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.