Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Granta

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 03:06, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Granta

Reluctantly I name this pub for deletion. It is near the river and has got a nice view from its two floors. The entry freely admits that it has nothing much to speak for it. It hasn't got an illustrious history or particularly good or poor beer. Really, I like the place, I do, but Wikipedia is not a travel guide or a grab-bag of data. Pilatus 11:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep/disambig: Make it a 3-choice disambig page, with only a link to the place the pub is located (but no article for the pub itself). This shouldn't be considered for delete, because it needs to either be a re-direct for Granta (like it was) or a disambig page, which includes two or three entries (which it almost is). --rob 12:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions recommend to drop the initial article. The river and the publisher are both called "Granta". Pilatus 12:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I took a quick look, and am not clear of what part of Wikipedia:Naming_conventions you're refering to. I thought I read the GFDL requires us to keep the old edit history of article, if the content there-in was used elsewhere (in a re-direct/merge or a move without copying history). It appears there is content that predates Granta. So, if you don't wish to do a disambig, why not just revert back to the previous re-direct. Seems quick and easy. It's pretty normal/legit to have a re-direct from a possible (though wrong and/or obsolete) spelling of a place. --rob 12:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Here is what I was talking about: Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion#Incompatible_votes. It explains why "Merge to Example and Delete" is invalid. Basically, any old history has to be kept, no matter what, if any of the old content found it's way into the new article. I interpret that to mean, we can't delete this old article. Now the "merge(?)/redirect" part was done a long time ago, and we can't now to the delete part. I'm new to this, and can't say for certain. --rob 12:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I was referring to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Avoid_the_definite_article_.28.22the.22.29_and_the_indefinite_article_.28.22a.22.2F.22an.22.29_at_the_beginning_of_the_page_name. Granta is the publisher, and a stretch of the River Cam is are known as Granta. Those are in the right place. The Granta (also named correctly) is the entry on the pub, which I don't think should have a home in Wikipedia.

Thanks for the precise link, which I just read. I'm not sure we disagree. I'm saying there should be *no* pub article. I'm advocating The Granta *either* be a disambigation page or a re-direct page. But, not a "content" page. You're entirely correct, that there should be no "content" page called The Granta. Disambiguation and re-direct pages aren't subject to normal naming rules. In fact, their whole purpose is to move somebody from the wrong name, to the correct name. Also, I agree Granta and River Cam should stay in the same place. --rob 13:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The article asserts it's famous, but does not say how and why. Martg76 13:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless notability sourced. I'm all in favor of these sorts of articles, but the notability has to be explained and sourced. Sdedeo 14:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • According to this website [1] there are 118 pubs in Cambridge. Unless they are specially notable (The Eagle Pub is an example) I'd rather see the rest in Wikitravel. Pilatus 14:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it's just a pub. -Splash 19:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not even a good pub, from reviews posted on the web Groeck 22:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn pubcruft. --Etacar11 02:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep - the article is poor as it is, but it probably has encyclopedic potential. What about a photo? See also Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Bars and public houses. Bovlb 05:33:56, 2005-08-30 (UTC)
• Delete, we can't have articles on every pub in the world. Unless there is something unique about this one, which has not been proven, it doesn't deserve its own article. Suggest author and those who think it's worth keeping take it to Wikitravel. Zoe 07:44, August 30, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.