Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garrick Club
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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The result was Keep and improve (nomination withdrawn). Espresso Addict (talk) 09:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No notability and no sources other than the club's website.Timdlocklear (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unlike its New York counterpart, there is no mention of notable/famous members, and – again – no sources. I just don't see why this place needs a Wikipedia listing. I can tell you small-town nightclubs with more action than this place seems to have, LOL! Timdlocklear (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - just cleaned up the nom for you. No comment to make on this AfD. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Not sure what happened with that... but it is my first AfD page... I thought I followed the directions right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timdlocklear (talk • contribs) 23:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - just cleaned up the nom for you. No comment to make on this AfD. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unlike its New York counterpart, there is no mention of notable/famous members, and – again – no sources. I just don't see why this place needs a Wikipedia listing. I can tell you small-town nightclubs with more action than this place seems to have, LOL! Timdlocklear (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A Google Books search turns up quite a bit of information about the club's history, its artistic holdings, and its more notable members. --Dhartung | Talk 23:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep You're nominating The Garrick Club for deletion? I can only presume this is because of your unfamiliarity with wikipedia, given as you say it's your first nomination for AfD. The Garrick Club was founded 180 years ago and is one of the most famous private members clubs in the world, with any number of artists, writers and actors among its members over time. Did the nominator bother to do any research [1] on a topic which he clearly knows absolutely nothing about? As for famous members how about Charles Dickens, J. M. Barrie, Rossetti, Millais and Edward Elgar? It's also got a terrific art collection [2]. Nick mallory (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I just checked and a lot of people link there, I will give you that. The article definitely needs improvement. There is absolutely NOTHING exciting about the listing and it does not mention its notable members, history (much), or anything... again... really "notable." Perhaps someone can improve it. But, in its current form, for an American like me it just looks like some club owner created a Wiki page for SEO purposes, and it just slipped through the cracks. Timdlocklear (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As for "not researching," remember something... this is an encyclopedia. When you read the entry, you should not have to do any further research (ie – all research should end up here). Without knowing anything about the Garrick Club, again, this just looks like some club fan or business owner created their own page for advertisement purposes (a POV which can be further solidified by the fact that the edit history says "Removed Advertisement.") Timdlocklear (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But you're not just reading it, you're nominating this article for deletion. You absolutely have to research it properly before you make that decision, read the notes on the steps you should take before nominating an article on the articles for deletion page. Nick mallory (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I hate to burst your bubble, but I've seen articles nominated for deletion for very silly reasons that don't even come close to the reasons here. All of that being said... at least with this, we will see some improvement in the article... I've already noticed edits (thanks) to assist in explaining the place. Timdlocklear (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But you're not just reading it, you're nominating this article for deletion. You absolutely have to research it properly before you make that decision, read the notes on the steps you should take before nominating an article on the articles for deletion page. Nick mallory (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As for "not researching," remember something... this is an encyclopedia. When you read the entry, you should not have to do any further research (ie – all research should end up here). Without knowing anything about the Garrick Club, again, this just looks like some club fan or business owner created their own page for advertisement purposes (a POV which can be further solidified by the fact that the edit history says "Removed Advertisement.") Timdlocklear (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I just checked and a lot of people link there, I will give you that. The article definitely needs improvement. There is absolutely NOTHING exciting about the listing and it does not mention its notable members, history (much), or anything... again... really "notable." Perhaps someone can improve it. But, in its current form, for an American like me it just looks like some club owner created a Wiki page for SEO purposes, and it just slipped through the cracks. Timdlocklear (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Super strong keep The Garrick not notable! au contraire mon ami, I'll have to pooh pooh that suggestion. But seriously The Garrick is an extremely well known club with a long illustrious history and many influential members. RMHED (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about this Let's remove the AFD tag and add citation and expert tags. I understand you are all saying it is notable and so forth, but the listing does not convey that by any stretch of the imagination. Also, anyone saying how notable it is willing to edit the thing? Timdlocklear (talk)
- Comment The article asserted quite enough history and notability for you to at least do a Google search yourself, at which point a tag such as {{primary sources}} would have been appropriate. I understand you nominated in good faith, and this article is below referencing standards, but this was clearly not "some guy's nightclub". We delete articles that cannot be substantially improved. --Dhartung | Talk 00:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but I fail to understand how you see the article in its current form as anything close to 'notable'. The first paragraph tells of age. Unfortunately, age does not equal notability. At 130 years old, the age of the club is in fact nothing extraordinary given the history of London and other businesses therein.
- The second paragraph talks of favored clientele. While it mentions "actors," there are no names mentioned. If we mentioned every third-rate film-industry-oriented club in existence, Wikipedia would be running very low on server space.
- The third paragraph is an improperly-cited copy/paste of a mission statement from the club's website – the only source in the article.
- The fourth paragraph talks about a sister club in New York with no real tie-in to the London branch other than the exchange of membership privileges and a female patron refusal, which apparently is by no means the most notable event surrounding the club's history.
- The fifth and final paragraph speaks only of the first women allowed into a "club talk."
- The article ends there.
- Add all of this to the fact that the article is written in British slang, severely deficient from Wikipedia quality standards, and it is easy to look at this as a work of fancruft or an un-notable addition for ulterior motives.
- I'm glad that everyone rallied to save an important article from deletion, but you have to understand that the process worked... this is a damningly deficient article that – in my opinion – needs a total rewrite if it is truly as famous as people are claiming it is.
- Perhaps I jumped the gun in the AfD, but I don't think so considering it sounds as if it were written by a 12-year-old. If nothing else, maybe some of the people complaining on this page will take the initiative to improve the article.
- Timdlocklear (talk)
- Thank you for delineating the deficiencies in the article. These can all be fixed by editing, since the topic is notable. But even an article "written by a 12-year-old" can be about a notable topic. --Dhartung | Talk 01:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Timdlocklear (talk)
- Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. lets put the nominator out of his misery. Just stick a ref improve tag on it. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (Edited) AfD Recommendation Withdrawn. However, I would encourage anyone that wants to scream and cry about how famous and popular this place is to avoid editing in sharp jabs here re: my AfD recommendation, and do everyone a giant favor by going THERE and editing in exactly why this place is so meaningful. As I said, reading the wiki page you would honestly think that it is some piddly little club whose owner got bored and decided to plug himself in Wikipedia.
- Slow down mate :-) I've restored the AfD template. Please don't remove them until closing admin gives the result. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Certainly one of the most notable clubs in in the UK. Does needs some work agreed but is a candidate for cleanup rather than deletion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok I've done a little more work to the article. Nom has withdrawn so not much else to say really? Sting au Buzz Me... 05:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.