Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Brunt V.C. (public house)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 No consensus. Whether this pub just meets or just misses WP:N is a close decision and the community's lack of consensus on that is pretty clear. It has more information and coverage than what one would expect for an otherwise local pub (Sunday Telegraph, e.g.) so this is not a precedent where any local watering hole that gets mentioned in the home-town press meets WP:N (see WP:LOCAL). Carlossuarez46 21:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Brunt V.C. (public house)

John Brunt V.C. (public house) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Nice article, but of local interest only, so I think that it's unencyclopedic as per WP:NOTABILITY. Perhaps add a summary to the Paddock Wood village article. -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 00:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep. It is unusually named as mentioned in the article. Needs a lot of 'padding' edited out. Would be a shame to delete a well written article. Maybe merge as per Daytona2 suggests. Hammer1980·talk 00:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep-Razorflame (talk) 00:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge & Redirect to Paddock Wood: Very well written (but that is not a reason to keep it), and somewhat notable. A google / g-news search brings back a few hits which do indicate notability, although mostly local notability (per the nom). - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep not only for the name, also for the controversy about the name. --Paularblaster (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:LOCAL. The "controversy", such as it was, about the name doesn't seem significant enough, barely worth a line or two in the Brunt article itself. We certainly don't need a redirect for what seems like an Applebee's equivalent. --Dhartung | Talk 02:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Local resistance to corporate homogenization is by its nature local, but also by its nature notable, particularly if successful. I wouldn't object to merging the information into the article for the village (with a link to it from the John Brunt article), but it is information that should be kept. --Paularblaster (talk) 12:01, 25 November 2007 (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.