Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camden head


 * 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   keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Camden head

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable London pub. Author has had a week to improve it and has done nothing. &mdash; Sgroupace (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Neutral Not really notable and there have been no sign of improvements. If improvements are made keep if it stays in the condition that it is, Delete.--Chip123456 (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * As Chip123456 above. Probably userfy it. Sorry Jackbeadle, but these are the perils of starting new articles directly in main space. It's best to begin them as userspace drafts, such as User:Jackbeadle/Camden Head, then to move the pages once they're written. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. A fair few mentions in Gbooks, but all seem to be incidental. Found only one article in thisislondon actually about the pub. Not bad, but still not really enough information to write a meaningful encyclopaedic article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep (or Userfy if not). I go back and forth between inclusion and deletion, but I'm frankly concerned that brand-new articles like this (May 30, 2012 is the first edit) are being so quickly tagged for deletion. I agree (and I do it myself) that working on new articles in userspace is much preferred, but I fear new editors are clueless as to how to go about that. I think it's too bitey to crash down on newcomers so soon. This old pub can be found in a poorly scanned weekly report of building enhancements from 1896, so it has been around a bit as the article notes. Can't we all just get along and let this article develop? Geoff  Who, me?  00:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I note that the principal author/creator, Jackbeadle, was not notified of this discussion. I've notified the user. Geoff  Who, me?  00:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I am the creator of the article. I don't even know how to comment on this discussion. but i'm adding sources. Next time, if i do a new page, I will "userfy" it, now i know. Thanks for those who were more understanding and apologies to those who felt I was spamming/disobeying guidelines.Jackbeadle (talk) 09:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Changing to Weak keep. I've had another look through GBooks. Difficult to pin down significant coverage because there's gazillions of incidental mentions, but it's listed in Time Out's 1000 Thigns To Do in London. With the historical interest in this pub, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep . It is a Grade II Listed Building. While Grade II is quite common, not that many pubs are listed, so I think it probably merits an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral. It is now clear that the Camden Head described in the article, which is on Camden High Street, is not the historic listed Camden Head, which is on Camden Walk, Islington. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 07:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Leaning Keep – Per the building's English Heritage listing here, and the following coverage:
 * Short article, yet significant coverage – Ornate and reliable Camden Head
 * The Flavor of a Village –  From Google summary: "At the pub, a 'fancy Victorian replica called the Camden Head, there are gentle sallies Over the Guhmess tap and tile lbt sausage . People talk to each other..."
 * Historical document – A poorly scanned copy of "The Builder, Volume 71"; a weekly report of building enhancements from 1896
 * Passing mentions – L’eau and behold!
 * Mentions –  Charming London at its best, Bob Stanley on Geoffrey Fletcher.
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 01:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Some of those sources are about the pub of this name in Islington which seems even more notable than the one in Camden. But as we don't have an article about that yet, it's good to assemble this material and then split the article. Warden (talk) 06:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Struck citations in my post above about a pub of the same name in Islington. Thanks for pointing this out. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep It is our editing policy to develop articles in mainspace as Wikipedia is a collaborative project in which editors are expected to assist each other in a constructive way. The article is coming along nicely and we now have enough sources to establish the notability of the topic. Warden (talk) 06:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I've already !voted, but I am commenting to appreciate the Colonel's mention of articles don't have to be perfect as I'm concerned by an unfortunate tendency I'm seeing of "ready, fire, aim" directed at new articles which have promise in that they are not blatant scamming, spamming, testing or adverting. Geoff  Who, me?  23:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Reliable sources have been found proving its notability.  D r e a m Focus  11:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Deserves to be kept due to improvements Finnegas (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2012 (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.