Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodstock 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 of the debate was keep. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woodstock Pub[edit]

I've been to the Woodstock pub while I was in the US Navy, and while it is a wonderful place, it's not notable. Nothing important has happened there, and it's not considered a bastion of Bangkok (other than to the relatively small expat community). This is the stuff that Wikitravel was created for. While I'm going to recommend that the article be deleted here. As a side note, I highly recommend that the article be moved to Wikitravel, though it will have to be rewritten to accomodate Wikitravel's rules. み使い Mitsukai 13:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki per nom. Eivind 14:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete per nom. Cyde Weys 21:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have been living in Bangkok for over 7 years. Woodstock is definately a notable place in the Bangkok expatriate scene. It appears in books. A song has been made about the pub. It is famous amongst the expats for its hamburgers. Wikitravel is not a wikimedia project. We cannot transwiki things over there. It is also notable that as opposed to most bars who disappear after a year or two. It has stayed on for over 20 years and is still continuing now, which is very very rare in Bangkok. Waerth 01:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is a violation of copyright to copy content from Wikipedia to Wikitravel, because the licenses are incompatible. Transwiki is therefore not a valid option. See the Wikitravel page for Wikipedians. Kusma (討論) 01:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then I change my vote to Delete as nn. Eivind 02:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn barcruft. Eusebeus 12:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems an OK article to me, no reason to delete. Any bar that's been around for that long in Bangkok is notable just for the fact that it's been here so long. KayEss | talk 12:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep, notability is not important, what matters is verifiability. WP is not paper. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep. Don't know about that pub or its notability - pubs are not my kind of thing when I stay in Bangkok -, but I trust Waerth's expertise as a local, and as a long time wikipedian. And the article doesn't read like a ad for that pub either. andy 21:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Somewhat notable. -- Lerdsuwa 16:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep, as Lerdsuwa said. --media_lib 16:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm closing this as "keep". The article is reasonably well-written, doesn't read like an ad, and contains easily verifiable information (though someone over there should work on that). --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:44, 13 March 2006 (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.