Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Woolpack Hotel, Mudgee
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Woolpack Hotel, Mudgee was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. 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
[edit] Woolpack Hotel, Mudgee
There are lots of hotels in the world, nothing on the page suggests this hotel is notable. Wikipedia is not a database of hotels. This page should be deleted. Edward 09:51, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Just a Hotel. Not notable. --Randy 12:07, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: More of the "document everything in Mudgee" stuff. A single hotel. Geogre 16:38, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- A "hotel" is usually a pub in Australia. This one has, it notes, a claim to fame. In a small town, a pub is a focus of the community. Wikipedia lists places in the USA that are populated by a single inhabitant. I don't know that some place at the back of woop-woop that no one even bothers to live in is more "notable" than a pub. I'm abstaining until I find out more about the Woolpack. Dr Zen 23:40, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect for now, but we should definitely have an article on what an Australian pub/hotel is all about. anthony 警告 23:48, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Would you mind outlining, though, by what measure Ashlee Simpson's new single is "notable" but a pub is not. I'm not saying either is or isn't, but I'd like to understand your reasoning. Dr Zen 00:17, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Is that question to me? I haven't decided whether or not this pub is notable, because I know basically nothing about Australian pub/hotels. But even if it is, the current article is small enough to merge with Mudgee and redirect (see Wikipedia:Article size). The question of keeping or redirecting in the case where one article clearly fits into being a subset of another is mainly one of size, not one of notability. I would guess this article is <1k, and I think that's a good standard for merging and redirecting, though there are exceptions. One exception would be merging a person with another person or an organization. A person is not a subset of another person, and a person goes outside the scope of an organization. I suppose you could merge a person with a family (or even a duo, like Amos and Andy), though. If the article is >1k of verifiable NPOV goodness at the end of VFD, we should probably keep rather than redirect. If it isn't, we redirect, and the subsection grows to >10K, we should probably split it back out. anthony 警告 01:31, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, it was a question to you. I have to say we disagree in the belief that article length should be a criterion in worthiness for being a separate article. But given that this is your position, could you explain why you don't apply it to schools, even when articles about them are very short?Dr Zen 01:46, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Article size applies to schools as far as I'm concerned, and sometimes I've voted to merge school articles rather than keep them. The thing is, VFD isn't really about whether an article should be kept or merged. The two votes are really equivalent. If a few other people have voted to merge I'll often join in or at least say that that compromise solution is acceptable. But if there are 5 people voting keep and 5 voting delete I see little point in voting merge even though that may be the best solution. My purpose of voting on VFD is to keep the content in the article from being irretrievably destroyed. When it comes to merging or keeping separate this is something which is well documented in the page history and can be reversed at any time in the future. With deleted articles, you've gotta go through the excruciating process of VfU within the first few months after deletion, or the article content is lost forever. anthony 警告 12:55, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for explaining. Of course you're right because anyone who wants to merge the articles need only wait until the vote is over and it's kept and then they can be bold and merge them! If the stub is unloved, no one is going to complain. Dr Zen 23:27, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Article size applies to schools as far as I'm concerned, and sometimes I've voted to merge school articles rather than keep them. The thing is, VFD isn't really about whether an article should be kept or merged. The two votes are really equivalent. If a few other people have voted to merge I'll often join in or at least say that that compromise solution is acceptable. But if there are 5 people voting keep and 5 voting delete I see little point in voting merge even though that may be the best solution. My purpose of voting on VFD is to keep the content in the article from being irretrievably destroyed. When it comes to merging or keeping separate this is something which is well documented in the page history and can be reversed at any time in the future. With deleted articles, you've gotta go through the excruciating process of VfU within the first few months after deletion, or the article content is lost forever. anthony 警告 12:55, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, it was a question to you. I have to say we disagree in the belief that article length should be a criterion in worthiness for being a separate article. But given that this is your position, could you explain why you don't apply it to schools, even when articles about them are very short?Dr Zen 01:46, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Is that question to me? I haven't decided whether or not this pub is notable, because I know basically nothing about Australian pub/hotels. But even if it is, the current article is small enough to merge with Mudgee and redirect (see Wikipedia:Article size). The question of keeping or redirecting in the case where one article clearly fits into being a subset of another is mainly one of size, not one of notability. I would guess this article is <1k, and I think that's a good standard for merging and redirecting, though there are exceptions. One exception would be merging a person with another person or an organization. A person is not a subset of another person, and a person goes outside the scope of an organization. I suppose you could merge a person with a family (or even a duo, like Amos and Andy), though. If the article is >1k of verifiable NPOV goodness at the end of VFD, we should probably keep rather than redirect. If it isn't, we redirect, and the subsection grows to >10K, we should probably split it back out. anthony 警告 01:31, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Would you mind outlining, though, by what measure Ashlee Simpson's new single is "notable" but a pub is not. I'm not saying either is or isn't, but I'd like to understand your reasoning. Dr Zen 00:17, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I dunno if you want a hotel in the middle of nowhere in an encyclopedia then get it from Mapquest, it its even there then keep it :)
- Delete. It's just another hotel, one of thousands across the country. Ambi 04:29, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Don't tell me we'll be struggling over the notability of hotels next! Not notable. --Improv 06:03, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- We're liable to struggle over the "notability" of everything, while that word remains so nebulous. Pubs are interesting artefacts, Improv. Perhaps not enough to be included in an encyclopaedia, but perhaps so. Some are vitally important to their communities, and some are no more important than a service station or a supermarket. Some have a history that bears telling, some don't. Dr Zen 08:06, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Merge into Mudgee and delete. I hope that whoever that wrote all these would expand the town article instead - Skysmith 09:50, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not so confident about that. It seems to me someone is doing this to try to prove some kind of point. anthony 警告 12:57, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Possibly deserves one line in the Mudgee article, but not an article of its own. Delete. Average Earthman 10:48, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. The one incident listed is not substantiated and apart from that appears to be a hotel of which there are probably quite a few in Mudgee. I will be working on the Mudgee article over the weekend hopefully putting in historical material notably on Henry Lawson. Capitalistroadster 12:13, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. Indrian 05:44, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete Almost any motel or hotel will have its share of famous guests, crimes, and other publicized incidents over the years. Not notable. Wyss 12:31, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
