Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The George, Wanstead


 * 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 per WP:CORP. ---J.S (T/C) 04:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The George, Wanstead

 * — (View AfD)

No real notability, page seems to be being used mostly for vanity entries Lost tourist 15:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Last paragraph has to go, and there's nothing left beyond a directory entry and no notability. Delete  Emeraude 16:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:CORP -- Whpq 17:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

trust me mate iv been to the george a lot. "piss head" bishai is always there and he basically is the reason it didnt close. hes pretty famous throughout east london. theres no need to take this down. J. Stevens — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitemooooorn (talk • contribs)


 * Delete No sources cited to back up any claims, nothing in google searches bring up why this is notable. Does not meet WP:CORP, is not Neutral in it's writing, and provides no claims to international notability. Per WP:CORP....

1) The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following: Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about itself, and advertising for the company. Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories Nope, nothing sourced and nothing found online

2)The company or corporation is listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications. Um no...

3)The company's or corporation's share price is used to calculate stock market indices. Being used to calculate an index that simply comprises the entire market is excluded. Being a bar/pub, I highly doubt this would ever happen.

Since this is a bar/pub, we could say it offers a service (serving alcohol) so...

1) The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following: Media re-prints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about its products or services, and advertising for the product or service. Newspaper stories that do not credit a reporter or a news service and simply present company news in an uncritical or positive way may be treated as press releases unless there is evidence to the contrary. Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as simple price listings in product catalogues.

Still no.

2) The product or service is so well-known that its trademark has suffered from genericization Nope. This hasn't happened.

Fails WP:Corp, is NN, Doesn't cite sources. Nuke it. -- Brian ( How am I doing? ) 21:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 23:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE User 87.74.17.102 altered my comments above, inserting the sentence: "Even so, this is no reason for deletion" and changing my vote from Delete to Do not Delete. (Evidence is here: []. He has also been one of the main recent contributors to the article. Emeraude 00:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

By the way, as a gay man I find your comments very insulting. Gay people have the same rights as you, you biggot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitemooooorn (talk • contribs)


 * If you must stoop to irrelevancies (what's gay got to do with anything), insults (by the way, there's only one G in bigot) and vandalising other users' comments then you have already lost the argument. Emeraude 18:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'v definately read articles about this character in the Wanstead and Ilford Guardian. Their website isnt brilliant but the article might be souced in there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitemooooorn (talk • contribs)
 * Just noticed Whitemoron has been banned. Emeraude 18:08, 9 December 2006 (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.