Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The White Lion, Thornbury
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 merge with Thornbury, South Gloucestershire. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No evidence of notability. --W(t) 00:53, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
Delete. There must be a White Lion in many English towns. I wouldn't trust this article because it's by a known vandal who cannot spell Gloucestershire. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)- Well I did my homework and the place does exist. I change my vote to merge with Thornbury, South Gloucestershire, with redirect, or keep. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:05, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete even though I wish Tony would stop dragging personality issues into VfD discussions. They don't help (especially when the delete consensus is pretty much a foregone conclusion) and they damage our ability to work together. ----Isaac R 01:26, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm sorry if you think that I've done this in any case, let alone this one. I think you've misunderstood what I wrote (my fault). The edit history of the person who created this article (whom I'd never encountered before this) shows that he is engaged in some pretty blatant vandalism. That isn't a personalit issue, it's a fact that tips my judgement on this already rather dubious entry. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Call it what you want. It is not useful to make general allegations against users here. Let's talk about content, not people. ---Isaac R 02:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- That was actually a very specific allegation. The editor in question has vandalized. The fact that an article has been produced by a vandal is a factor in determining whether it can be taken on good faith. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- If you have a basis for these allegations, you should pursue sanctions against the user. But as long as we allow somebody editing privileges, we have to assume good faith. Without that assumption, this whole collaborative editing experiment is a waste of time. ----Isaac R 04:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- That may be your interpretation of "assume good faith" but it is certainly not everyone's. Many people interpret it as "assume good faith until an editor betrays that faith; after that, the burden of proof is upon them to demonstrate that their edits are sincerely meant and worthwhile." I don't see how everyone's time is wasted by learning from experience; I don't see why we must assume that an editor who has vandalized in the past is now making good edits until it's proven that those specific edits are not. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- That would turn every discussion into a debate over good/bad faith. One last time: let's talk about CONTENT. ----Isaac R 19:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- No, I think once someone is a confirmed vandal it pretty much settles the debate on whether they can be counted on for good faith. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- That would turn every discussion into a debate over good/bad faith. One last time: let's talk about CONTENT. ----Isaac R 19:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- That may be your interpretation of "assume good faith" but it is certainly not everyone's. Many people interpret it as "assume good faith until an editor betrays that faith; after that, the burden of proof is upon them to demonstrate that their edits are sincerely meant and worthwhile." I don't see how everyone's time is wasted by learning from experience; I don't see why we must assume that an editor who has vandalized in the past is now making good edits until it's proven that those specific edits are not. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- If you have a basis for these allegations, you should pursue sanctions against the user. But as long as we allow somebody editing privileges, we have to assume good faith. Without that assumption, this whole collaborative editing experiment is a waste of time. ----Isaac R 04:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- That was actually a very specific allegation. The editor in question has vandalized. The fact that an article has been produced by a vandal is a factor in determining whether it can be taken on good faith. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Call it what you want. It is not useful to make general allegations against users here. Let's talk about content, not people. ---Isaac R 02:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm sorry if you think that I've done this in any case, let alone this one. I think you've misunderstood what I wrote (my fault). The edit history of the person who created this article (whom I'd never encountered before this) shows that he is engaged in some pretty blatant vandalism. That isn't a personalit issue, it's a fact that tips my judgement on this already rather dubious entry. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: Just a pub. Single businesses (like high schools) are not proper subjects of articles unless they are notable in some way and stand out from the others of the type. Wikipedia is not the restaurant guide. Geogre 01:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete non notable. JamesBurns 04:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, this pub stands out because "it won the 1999 Britain in Bloom" award for Best Pub Display. Could be merged with Thornbury if not kept. Thanks for the research Uncle G. Kappa 07:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Merge There isn't much reason to keep this stub, but there is a good article on Thornbury that it would easily fit into. Sonic Mew 13:42, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge, this pub is already mentioned in the Thornbury article, and there is even a picture of it, but there isn't a need for its own aritcle. NSR 18:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Merge to more complete parallel article. Mr Bound 19:13, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment As it happens the White Lion, Thornbury is verifiable (there in an entry in the British Pub Guide, for instance. So I could buy a merge with Thornbury, South Gloucestershire. There are three other pubs in Thornbury on beerintheevening.com, so if someone is keen on pubs it might be fun to add pub entries to British villages and towns. Quite a large task, though. There must be around twenty pubs within a half hour walk of my house. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Merge into Thornbury, South Gloucestershire - one of many real and fictitious pubs with that name - Skysmith 10:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep ··gracefool |☺ 03:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- 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.