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 no consensus. Essentially, there is no strong agreement on whether or not simply being a Grade II listed building is enough to be important for a global encyclopedia, and whether or not there is sufficient coverage of sources such that the article can be improved. The "keep" side suggest the coverage is sufficient, and the article is in reasonable shape, while the "delete" side have suggested it isn't, and it's not possible to improve the article to an extent it could be maintained by anybody. The discussion has also deteriorated into personal attacks from both sides. I have no objection to the RfC as proposed by Black Kite. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Dog & Bull

Dog & Bull (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBUILDING and WP:GNG, purely WP:MILL, no SIGCOV in multiple RS Mztourist ( talk) 09:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Mztourist ( talk) 09:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mztourist ( talk) 09:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Keep The nomination seems to be harassment contrary to WP:HOUND. This arises because the nominator and I have had an unrelated dispute and now he is going after my creations as a form of retaliation. They were specifically warned about this by @ Lar:.

As for the topic, this was created in response to a request here. The place in question has a history going back to the 12th century and is listed for legal protection by Historic England. Naturally there is plenty of coverage in the many books about London pubs such as the Good Beer Guide and London Heritage Pubs.

Andrew🐉( talk) 10:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC) reply

No WP:HOUNDing at all. I PRODed numerous pages, which you dePROded and so I and other have put those pages up for AFD all as I explained on your Talk Page: [1]. You can't just create pages about your local pub ignoring GNG. In 2010 there were 374,000 listed buildings of which 92% were Grade II, so about 344,000, so it's not at all notable. Mztourist ( talk) 10:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• I've never been to Croydon and my local is actually The Drayton Court. As Mztourist is mainly interested in the Vietnam War, note that Ho Chi Minh worked there. Andrew🐉( talk) 12:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Mztourist made two PRODs just two minutes apart: [2], [3]. The only connection between these articles is that I created them both. Neither topic falls within Mztourist's usual interests. Andrew🐉( talk) 11:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Andrew I have been watching your Talk Page since I posted there, that is how I saw Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandy Munro. That led me to look at your Articles Created where I saw that you have a 7% deletion rate which indicates to me that your understanding of WP:GNG is less than perfect. Looking through your articles I saw several that appear dubious, I PROded 2, you dePRODed both and I have so far AFDed one, this one, your most recent article. Take it to ANI if you have a problem. Mztourist ( talk) 12:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• There was no consensus to delete Sandy Munro. The other article prodded by Mztourist for "uncontroversial deletion" was Eudo Mason but notice that we don't have an AfD for that as promised: "I will put any page that you dePROD up for deletion." Andrew🐉( talk) 12:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Yes Sandy Munro closed as no consensus, congratulations your 7% deletion rate remains intact for now, well done you. Mztourist ( talk) 12:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete per noms rationale. - Roxy the happy dog . wooF 11:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC) reply

  Roxy has a bone to pick too. They can lately be found on Mztourist's talk page, barking at " project ARSehole". Andrew🐉( talk) 11:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC) reply

  Just as tasty as your deprods, Andy. (I wasn't going to mention Project Arsehole) - Roxy the happy dog . wooF 11:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC) reply

  I have looked at ARS and it seems to just be organized WP:CANVASSING. Mztourist ( talk) 12:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC) reply

  The discussion got several !votes as a result of it being featured offsite at Wikipediocracy. This seems to explain the anti-British quote and hostile !votes on 27 Jan. Andrew🐉( talk) 13:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Share the link, I can't see it there. Mztourist ( talk) 16:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep Notable, historic building, covered in reliable sources both for its architecture and its role as a pub. The other points should be at ANI. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC) reply

  Please provide these RS, they're not there at the moment. Mztourist ( talk) 13:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC) reply

  You have made no argument as to why the sources in the article are not reliable; and your hectoring is unacceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC) reply

  The local newspaper, the local council, a bar guide, a Heritage listing and then various passing references. Do you really think that amounts to SIGCOV in multiple RS that this is a "notable historic building... both for its architecture and its role as a pub"? It doesn't meet WP:NBUILDING which requires: Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability Mztourist ( talk) 16:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC) reply

  Like I said: "You have made no argument as to why the sources in the article are not reliable" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Written above. Mztourist ( talk) 17:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep meets WP:NBUILDING Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable. Grade 2 listing meets this, as this is a National listing not local. Davidstewartharvey ( talk) 16:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC) reply

  You're looking at the wrong part, the relevant part reads: Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. Mztourist ( talk) 16:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC) reply

How can I be using the wrong part? The bit you quoted and the bit I quoted both come from the same WP:NBUILDING. Listed status in the UK are designated as per: In the UK, the process of protecting the built historic environment (i.e. getting a heritage asset legally protected) is called 'designation'. To complicate things, several different terms are used because the processes use separate legislation: buildings are 'listed'; ancient monuments are 'scheduled', wrecks are 'protected', and battlefields, gardens and parks are 'registered'. A heritage asset is a part of the historic environment that is valued because of its historic, archaeological, architectural or artistic interest." Therefore it is officially assigned the status of national heritage by the UK government and so therefore notable. Davidstewartharvey ( talk) 18:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC) reply

What you quoted applies to artificial geographical features, what I quoted specifically applies to buildings. As I said above, as at 2010 there were approximately 344,000 Grade II buildings in the UK, so its not at all notable. This pub is not a National Trust or English Heritage site, which would be required to fall under Cultural Heritage. Mztourist ( talk) 03:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC) reply

As per the listing for Geographical feature "Conversely, human settlements or other engineered forms are considered types of artificial geographical features." A Building is a human settlement. As per the other quote I gave, which is also on Wikipedia, this has been designated a Historical asset. If a site is owned by National Trust or English Heritage is because they have bought, or been given (mainly due to death taxes) a site that has been identified by the government as a historical asset. The listed status is more important. Remember this is the building, not the pub that is important and has the listing. Because there is 344,000 odd Grade 2 buildings doesn't mean they are not notable, they have been identified as historical assets by the state, which means they are national heritage. We don't say footballers are not notable because there is a few million who have played pro football? Davidstewartharvey ( talk) 06:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC) reply

The relevant criteria are those for buildings not geographical features. Footballers is a red herring and they don't all have pages, nor do all 344,000+ Grade II listed buildings. SIGCOV in multiple RS is the key here and this doesn't have it, its just another old English pub. Mztourist ( talk) 07:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep Nationally listed in the UK, therefore passes WP:NBUILDING. We have had this discussion at AfD many times, and it always ends up as a "keep". Edwardx ( talk) 18:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment Again, Grade II listing is not automatic notability! There are half a million listed buildings in the UK, and there is no consensus whatsoever that all of them are immune from deletion without having to show significant coverage. The claim above this is false and many pages of Grade II buildings have been deleted. In this case however, there may be adequate significant coverage attesting to the history and recognition of the pub. Reywas92 ^Talk 00:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC) reply
  • This is your opinion, nothing more. Grade II building clearly do meet the criteria of WP:GEOFEAT as written. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• "Everything British is notable by virtue of being British." doesn't apply here. Neutral. While Grade II listing is nice, it is barely sufficient to grant notability. The pub is however mentioned in several sources too, so deletion is a bit of a stretch here.-- Darwinek ( talk) 00:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete There doesn't appear to be any policy (or even a guideline) that suggests Grade II listing is any sort of pass to notability (NBUILDING requires "significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources"). Given that, there's nothing here. The Historic England entry is a listing. The Layers of London entry is a listing. The CAMRA entry is a listing. The other two sources that are actually about the pub are local newspapers. My local pub is also Grade II listed - parts of it date from the 1570s - and I could easily find twice as many sources about that - and probably more in-depth ones - as are on display here. But I'm not going to, because that pub isn't notable either. Black Kite (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC) reply
  • If it's listed then it clearly is! -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC) reply
    • No, it isn't. If It was Grade II* then possibly, but there are over 350,000 Grade II buildings in the UK and the vast majority are completely unremarkable. Black Kite (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Pretty clear GNG failure with almost zero SIGCOV. Any editing disputes are completely irrelevant to whether the subject is notable. SK2242 ( talk) 03:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete sourcing is incredibly thin doesnt pass the "in depth coverage criterion of NBUILDING. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 05:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep The official Historic England listing is sufficient for notability in this case. Redoryxx ( talk) 13:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep as a listed building per WP:GEOFEAT. Yes, "Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage" does apply to buildings. What else do you think that paragraph is referring to exactly? The paragraphs underneath simply provide further guidance on features that are not "officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage". -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC) reply
  • What else do you think that paragraph is referring to exactly? things like Tumulus and Anglo-Saxon burial mounds for example - but NOT buildings. Simples. - Roxy the happy dog . wooF 14:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC) reply
    • And would like to show us consensus for that minority opinion? -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC) reply
      • What is your basis for saying that is a minority opinion? GEOFEAT has 3 bullets, the 2nd bullet relates to buildings, but you are trying to say that all buildings actually fit under the 1st bullet which is not supported. Mztourist ( talk) 16:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC) reply
        • Well, this is a pretty good illustration. Not exactly a full consensus, but far more of a consensus that Grade II buildings are notable than that they're not. You can also see that thinking (including mine, incidentally) has changed over time. If you read the AfDs you'll see that many people consider that point 1 of WP:GEOFEAT does apply to buildings. Frankly, I'm amazed that anyone would interpret it any other way. Buildings clearly are "artificial geographical features". It seems to me like just a further attempt to claim that more and more topics are not notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC) reply
          • Another one of your personal lists which you use to claim consensus... As is evident Grade II* are generally notable, while Grade II buildings are notable if they have SIGCOV in multiple RS, but just being Grade II is not an automatic pass on notability. No, I do not agree that "many people consider that point 1 of WP:GEOFEAT does apply to buildings" and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derwent House clearly shows this, as do the discussions here. Mztourist ( talk) 09:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC) reply
            • Another one of your personal lists which you use to claim consensus... Snidely questioning my integrity again are we? I see little consensus here that your opinion is in the majority. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC) reply
              • Always amusing seeing you take apparent offense at behaviour that you routinely practice with those who disagree with you. Mztourist ( talk) 12:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment Subject falls under second point of GEOFEAT "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability" SK2242 ( talk) 19:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC) reply
  • As already stated, no, it falls under the first point. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC) reply
    • @ Necrothesp: The Dog & Bull is a building, and so point 2 applies. SK2242 ( talk) 18:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC) reply
      • Indeed, but it is also an artificial geographical feature, so point 1 applies. Point 2 is merely saying that if a building does not meet the criteria of point 1 then it can still be notable. Blatantly obvious to me (and many other editors). -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC) reply
        • You read a lot into GEOFEAT that blatantly isn't there. Nowhere does it say that if point 1 doesn't apply to a building then point 2 applies. Mztourist ( talk) 12:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep It has a grade II listing. [4] Listed_building#Grade_II Grade II: buildings that are of special interest, warranting every effort to preserve them. I believe they are more qualified to determine a buildings notability than some random Wikipedia editor. Dream Focus 15:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete No SIGCOV. Grade II listing is the lowest level in system and covers more than 300,000 buildings. It shouldn't automatically confer notability. -- RaiderAspect ( talk) 07:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep, the fact that it's authoritatively covered by Nikolaus Pevsner (county architectural surveys of England) and that it has a Grade II listing shows that the pub is notable as a building. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 12:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Snow Keep per Edwardx, Dream & Chiswick Chap, plus per the extensive coverage in reliable sources.

• Comment If this ends up being kept I suspect an RfC on Grade II listing is required, because at the moment many people appear to believe that it confirms some sort of notability on what in most cases are 350,000 completely unremarkable buildings. Like this one. Black Kite (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• The unremarkable buildings are the ones that don't get listed and there are millions more of those. In any case, the numbers are unimportant because it is our clear policy that, as Wikipedia is not paper, we can accommodate any number of articles. As a result, Wikipedia now has 6 million articles and counting. We should expect many more as there are millions of species, populated places, politicians, pro sportspeople, &c. Listed buildings are comparatively straightforward to document because the listing gives the basic architectural features and history which can then be rounded out with a photograph, map, coordinates and the like. This then works well with our mobile app which specifically tells readers about notable buildings in their locality. And that works well with projects like Wiki Loves Monuments. Why would we want to damage and disrupt this natural and productive activity? Andrew🐉( talk) 10:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Sure, but not for non-notable pubs, like this one. - Roxy the happy dog . wooF 10:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - not enough significant coverage from independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Most of the keep !votes hinge on whether or not Grade II listed buildings meet the auto-notability requirements as per WP:GEOFEAT, however, in other discussions on other topics, any classification with so many recipients would fail that test (e.g. Silver Star recipients - approximately 150k). WP:NBUILDING, while saying that buildings "may" be notable due to their historic record, clearly states that these must be backed up "significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability", which is clearly not the case here. I think Black Kite's suggestion regarding an RFC on grade II buildings is warranted. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep, and "OPPOSE OPENING AN RFC ABOUT GRADE II". It has long been my understanding that, as a rule of thumb, Grade II* and higher (not Grade II which is lower) listed buildings in the U.K. are expected to be Wikipedia-notable, based on the numbers of places of each type and most importantly based on the typical availability of reliable source info from, what, "British Heritage" or whatever is the typical source. (To Americans, this is roughly equivalent to saying most of 95,000 or so individually- NRHP-listed places are likely to merit articles, because the NRHP registration documents will exist and usually will have lots to say, while places which are merely among 1 or 2 million contributing buildings in NRHP-listed historic districts won't necessarily have any substantial info about them available in NRHP documents.) These are just rules of thumb, one has to leave discretion to editors, about whether it is worth creating an article. But note, a good photo or two conveys a whole lot, is worth ~1,000 words of factual text. This place is apparently Grade II, but there are pic(s) and the editors have cobbled together a bunch of text-info sources, some about sort of trivial-sounding things, which nonetheless add sufficiently to the baseline "Grade II"-ness of the place. There cannot be a hard and fast rule that all places Grade II and lower are not notable (easily contradicted by many examples obviously meeting wp:GNG), nor that all places Grade II* plus must have articles. It is up to editors' discretion to choose where to develop coverage; editors might choose to cover a bunch of historic sites including high-designation ones in one list-article for a local area, and there may be no need to split out separate articles. I can't see what an RFC would usefully accomplish, and whatever "rule" it could come up with would not apply here, anyhow. -- Doncram ( talk) 21:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep Evidently a significant community asset. We have barely started documenting the deep architectural and social heritage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia IMO. No Swan So Fine ( talk) 00:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep Grade IIs are deemed notable per GEOFEAT as cultural heritage. Philafrenzy ( talk) 20:34, 2 February 2021 (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.