Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Cambridge Arms

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 keep, no consensus. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Cambridge Arms

I think I've been there - nice place, as I recall - but I can't see why this is especially notable Finbarr Saunders 13:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep - I agree that this is testing the bounds of notability, but we seem to have over a hundred articles on British pubs, and this is one with a certain history and signifigance. The article could certainly do with expansion. How about a photo? Bovlb 14:18:39, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
• Delete having been there many times, I can confirm that there is nothing of note about the place. Hvaing the odd refit doesn't give you much singificance. -Splash 16:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, seems factual and verifiable to me, no reason to delete given. Trollderella 16:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • One supposes that the nominator thinks it non-notable, since he says "can't see which this is especially notable". -Splash 16:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I suppose that he does, but notability is not part of the deletion criteria. Trollderella 16:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

That's true, however, when something is non-notable, it is often a good enough reason for many Wikipedians for the reasons given in WP:N. I'd also recommend taking a look at Wikipedia:Importance and Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance. It's worth noting that in music and in vanity articles, non-notability is a sufficient reason for deletion. Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider and it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Blackcap | talk 17:12, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. The Eagle and Child has entry supported by it being the haunt of JRR Tolkien, have any of the said notable musicians smashed up the bar, or given and impromptu gig there? I might be biased on this one though. I think the third para about refits needs a severe pruning. Alf 16:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Just on the edge of notability. Given the admirable absence of promotional info, I say be generous. Sdedeo 18:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Needs a clearer association with something/somebody of note per Alf. Dottore So 19:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Trollderella's repeated contention that notability is not a deletion criterion is false. Zoe 21:17, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

So you keep saying Zoe, but the word 'notability' does not occur in the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. I know, I know, you're going to claim that some kind of verbal tradtion handed down from father to son, or argument from inference from some other page that has nothing to do with deletion policy means that it really is. However, in making my votes, I have tried to assess the article against Wikipedia's actual deletion policy, and in making comments, have made them about what is actually deletion policy. Trollderella 21:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• • While the word "notability" may not appear on the deletion policy page, its synonyms do in the criteria for speedy deletion, to which I wish articles like this were subject. If it is policy you want, let us consider WP:NOT, which states categorically that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. That something can verifiably be said to exist does not make it worthy of having an article here. The fire hydrant outside my home exists, and I'm sure I could find a great deal of documentation regarding it which would not constitute original research. However, its notability, except to the neighborhood dogs, is suspect. If you are really looking to participate in a project which collects knowledge like so much string and tinfoil, may I suggest Everything2, where inclusionists are welcomed (be aware, though, that even in that paradise, some articles are not accepted). Denni☯ 00:56, 2005 August 27 (UTC)

I somewhat resent the fact that, every time it is pointed out that nowhere in deletion policy is 'notability' mentioned, the discussion is taken immediately to 'oh, then you must be a lunatic who wants to keep absolutely everything, no matter how stupid it is'. That's simply not true, and not a fair characterisation of my position. If there is some synonym of notability that is, in fact, in the deletion policy, then why not use that? To demolish that extremely common and frustrating strawman, again, I really suspect that there is not enough documentation on the fire hydrant outside your house to write an article that would give information about that fire hydrant that was not true of any other one, except it's location. It would have no possibility to grow beyond a sub-stub, and would be better being merged into an article on fire hydrants in general. I am not advocating maintaining a list of all fire hydrants, this is clearly one of the things that wikipedia is not. A pub is a differnt class of creature, having unique attributes that we could write an article about. Trollderella 21:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Pubs on the King Street Run are notable. If you're in Cambridge, should be avoided on a Friday night however. David | Talk 21:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. But like I said, I'm a bit biased on this one. I pruned the third para, severely. Alf 22:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a phone book. Denni☯ 00:40, 2005 August 27 (UTC)
• Delete I like pubs. Really, I do. And I'm inclined to think there are notable pubs out there. But a pub isn't notable just by being, anymore than the kebab van/Indian Restaurant that you visit afterwards is. Or the taxi firm that takes your wretched drunk self home is either. This one makes no real claim to notability. Sabine's Sunbird 00:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Doesn't seem notable in itself. Merge with The King Street Run, or else delete all of those too. Flowerparty ^talk 00:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

It's up for VfD, too. Pilatus 16:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I merged it anyway. See Wikipedia:Pages for deletion/The King Street Run. Flowerparty ^talk 18:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Gah. It says at the bottom of the VfD not to do that, and for good reason. If there were now a consensus here to delete the page, which there could be, you'd have invalidated that vote by merging it for us, The GFDL insists we keep authorship history. Being bold is all very well, but not when it cuts out half the voters in a discussion. -Splash 20:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Er, oh dear, you're quite right. Sorry about that. But since they're both up for deletion it seems sensible to point out the other discussion. Flowerparty ^talk 21:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I know the place. It doesn't have an illustrious history, or illustrious architecture. If it served Mild I'd vote keep, sadly enough serving mild is notable these days. Pilatus 12:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with Pubs in Cambridge or someplace. Kappa 22:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for egregious non-notability above and beyond the call of duty. Nandesuka 22:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. *drew 00:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable (WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information). --TimPope 08:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't seem notable on the basis of the information given in the article. Martg76 00:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Jooler 17:35, 29 August 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.