Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penderel's Oak


 * 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   delete. WP:SNOW. Closing per unanimous consensus. — Aitias // discussion  00:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Penderel's Oak
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Merely a meta-reference to the London Wikipedians who meet there every month. Apart from a few trivial mentions due to receiving non-notable awards, this non-notable pub - one of hundreds belonging to the Wetherspoons chain - does not warrant an article. WilliamH (talk) 10:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC) WilliamH (talk) 10:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Award not notable. Coverage only what is to be expected for a pub, and isn't extensive. Quantpole (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I would suggest merging it into an apropriate list article, but I don't think it is notable enough for List of pubs in the United Kingdom and lists of pubs in Holborn or the LB Camden don't seem to exist. Thryduulf (talk) 12:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete distinctly non-discript pub compared with The Grade II-listed Princess Louise just down the road which does deserve its own article. No evidence of notability from a single reliable secondary source independent of the public house's trade affiliations.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's a fucking Weatherspoon's. And it'll make off-wiki ZioNazi collusion that much more clandestine. - hahnch e n 17:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's got to be one of the bizarrest deletion reasons I've seen given! Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "most bizarre" surely. To explain Hahnchen's deletion reason - the London Wikimedia group meets there every month for a rather long pub lunch. Since we're currently on 23 meets, it's been going for a while. "it'll make off-wiki ZioNazi collusion that much more clandestine" refers to the tendency for POV-pushers to refer to users as zionists/nazis if they disagree with them and declare that there is a "cabal". Ironholds (talk) 13:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah that explains the deletion rationale, thank you. Your comment about "most bizarre" has led me to find out about the comparative and superlative of Bizarre. In addition to "more bizarre" and "most bizarre", "bizarrest" gets a lot of use. In contrast "bizarrer" is very rare and almost certainly non-standard in English - it is the standard comparative of the German "bizarr" (meaning "bizarre") though. So the addition of a non-notable pub to Wikipedia has indirectly resulted in improvement to Wiktionary - bizarre! ;) Thryduulf (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:N. Award is non-notable, coverage is exactly what you'd expect for a single branch of a chain. Ironholds (talk) 09:52, 19 July 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.