Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De Hems pub


 * 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   speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn - improvements seem to have been made to the satisfaction of all. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

De Hems pub

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

One line article. No assertion of notability. Tagishsimon (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Is now sufficiently improved; another good result from an AFD. Quite why the abuse was necessary is beyond me. AFD's may not be WP:cleanup, but they tend to be more effective than that. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Yet another pub... No evidence of notability. Pure advertisement. Wikipedia is not a directory. Nothing indicates that this pub distinguishes himself from the other pubs in the world. Jolenine  ( Talk  -  My Contribs ) 21:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Yet another nomination made without any evidence of research, discussion or consideration of alternatives to deletion per our deletion policy. I find it quite easy to expand this stub and have started to do so.  Deletion is not helpful in this. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yet another ad hominem attack. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is a general one but if the cap fits, wear it. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Go and read WP:AGF. To compound your error is merely crass. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral At the moment when I suggested to delete, the article had only one line and it really looks like a directory. But now, since a user added more info, I take back my suggestion to delete and I'm now neutral. To Colonel Warden: Everybody has his own way of thinking and interpreting stuffs. If you do not agree, fine with me, but please don't attack the others as your comment was clearly attacking me and/or the nominator. Lets keep the atmosphere cool here and not start a fight when there is a little disagreement. Thanks! Jolenine  ( Talk  -  My Contribs ) 01:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment AFD nominators have a fiduciary responsibility to follow wp:before. Clearly, there was source material that would have been found had that procedure been followed. AFD's are not WP:cleanup.--Firefly322 (talk) 12:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * People make mistakes all the time. Hey, I voted "keep" for an author who plainly wasn't notable, and I have had to admit error and change it to delete. I'm sure the nominator acted in good faith, even though I disagree with him or her.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally feel that "without any evidence of research, discussion or consideration of alternatives to deletion" is not an attack, nor is it bad faith. I respect that you may disagree with the assessment, but that doesn't mean it is an attack/bad faith.Ikip (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. This is clearly a notable drinking establishment with a long history. The one online source provided makes that crystal clear. Let's give this article a bit of time to develop.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Long colorful history. Recent edits have made this an easy call, but please let's keep this WP:CIVIL. J04n(talk page) 00:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - a very well-known Soho drinking establishment with a rich history. Must certainly stay. Tris2000 (talk) 12:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep very well referenced. Will the nominator consider withdrawing his nomination? Ikip (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to closing administrator This article has gone through significant improvements, since it was nominated for deletion. Ikip (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This appears to be a historic establishment that has received substantial non-trivial coverage supporting notability. Cbl62 (talk) 02:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - easily passes WP:GNG and now an interesting encyclopedic entry to boot. Good work Colonel Warden! Bridgeplayer (talk) 04:01, 7 October 2009 (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.