Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/The Royal Standard of England: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:02, 25 January 2008 editJustin (talk | contribs)1,730 edits The Royal Standard of England: keep← Previous edit Revision as of 08:06, 25 January 2008 edit undoWebHamster (talk | contribs)18,133 edits The Royal Standard of EnglandNext edit →
Line 6: Line 6:
*'''Keep''' Although the article does not mention it, the pub is the oldest free house in England. ] (]) 07:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC) *'''Keep''' Although the article does not mention it, the pub is the oldest free house in England. ] (]) 07:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Non-notable? . That was a quick search for the first UK news source I recognized (which is a short list). The article needs references, but that isn't a reason to delete. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 08:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC) *'''Keep'''. Non-notable? . That was a quick search for the first UK news source I recognized (which is a short list). The article needs references, but that isn't a reason to delete. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 08:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
:*You did read that article in the Telegraph didn't you? Did you count up how many "it claims" there were? Sounds like they are unverified to me thereby not making it a particularly good source for a reference. --]''' 08:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:06, 25 January 2008

The Royal Standard of England

The Royal Standard of England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable English pub, no references to back up any of the claims made in the artcle. Basically a non-encyclopaedic article. WebHamster 05:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  • You did read that article in the Telegraph didn't you? Did you count up how many "it claims" there were? Sounds like they are unverified to me thereby not making it a particularly good source for a reference. --WebHamster 08:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Categories: