Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuper's Gardens
Source: 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. Not clear from
]Cuper's Gardens
- Cuper's Gardens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This subject is a small tea house that existed in the 18th century and eventually went out of business. No notability is asserted and unclear there is any coverage. ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Purely on the basis that this is the sort of historical information that I would hope to find on Wikipedia. Okay, the place itself may not be notable, but it does inform the reader of otherwise lost social history i.e. there were tea gardens in 1736 with orchestras, fireworks and loose morals of visitors! Lack of coverage? Could this be because the Internet had not been invented at the time? Periglio (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This was not a "small tea house" but rather a well-known venue for entertainment in London including live music that was in business for about 75 years. It featured large fireworks displays. A Google Books search shows extensive coverage in reliable sources. It was discussed by contemporary literary figures including John Aubrey, Horace Walpole and Samuel Johnson. Many years after it closed, Charles Dickens wrote about it. It is notable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Plenty of coverage in one simple Google Books search - [2] SL93 (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep seems to have a lot of coverage for just a small tea house. Must be a special small tea house.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- the variety of literary references suggests that people are likely to want to know what literary allusions are to. This justifies the article's existence. The article probably needs expansion to pick up what Cullen has discovered. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Keep — the briefest of research reviews that this is a historic and notable 10-acre London pleasure garden. A more reasonable notice would have been for more references. It is recommended the the proposer does more basis research before proposing deletions in the future. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 13:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close, speedy keep: The nominator was blocked as of 06:52, 21 June 2013 for sock puppetry per a discussion "Disruptive creation of groundless AFDs, probable sockpuppetry". Also, nominator cannot vote within the nomination - removed it. Crtew (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2013 (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.