Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Sergeant, Wandsworth

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 delete. The sources provided all appear to be problematic in establishing the notability of the subject per WP:GNG. ‑Scottywong | spill the beans _ 04:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Old Sergeant, Wandsworth

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

No clear assertion of notability. Aside from a few reviews, the only mentions the pub gets in sources are on the owners (Young's) website, and their own book on their pubs ("Inn and around London" - currently called "Forever Young's"), and in the local paper for being a category winner in a non-notable pub award (one of several run by The Publican to help promote pubs). Research by myself and the article creator have turned up no further information. Fails WP:GNG as it has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tal Brenev (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being over 200 years old makes this quite historic. Sources from such pre-internet days may not be easy to Google but this is no reason to delete. Per WP:ATD, the worst case would be merger into some higher level article such as Garratt Lane and so our editing policy applies. Andrew (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merging was tried and reverted, which is why we are here. We have never used age by itself as a criteria for notability, given that in Europe, 200 years is not very old for a building. We tend to go by what reliable sources say. And other than a local paper, there are no independent reliable sources which speak significantly about this place. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The guide to AFD lists Notability for People, Organisations, Music, but not either places or buildings.

The page refers to a place of entertainment that;

1) is over 250 years old

2) has an award for being the best community pub in Britain in 2012.

3) has an original example of a 19th Century Coach House.

4) Is an example of a small but popular "Local"

Any one of these reasons shows notability. Consequently the application should be rejected.

DonJay (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If 1) and 3) were true then it would most definitely be a listed building. It isn't. 2) may contribute to its notability, but doesn't establish it. 4) is utterly irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. According to the official English Heritage list, it does not seem to be a listed building, not even Grade II (the lowest rating), which suggests it is not in fact anywhere near as old, historic or architecturally interesting as the article claims (since any building that was as described in the article most assuredly would be listed). It is therefore likely that, although an inn of this name may have stood on the site in the 18th century, the current building is not it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The facts in the article are reliably sourced, see below. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All I see are claims that it's the same pub as the older one with the same name. This is done quite a lot. Many pubs that claim great age are actually nowhere near as old as they say they are - great age is a marketing feature. Frankly, I am inclined to trust English Heritage's experts, who have not listed it, not even Grade II, let alone the higher grade it would probably be given if it was really this old, over any sources quoted in the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd because the facts are not in dispute - no unsubstantiated age or features are being claimed here. The only question that's unresolved is the relationship between the apparently Victorian frontage and the known 1785 date of a pub on the site. As for listing, many English pubs are not listed even when they possibly have back rooms dating to the 18th century; the listings are generally for buildings that are visibly fine, whether Victorian or older, so we needn't place much faith in rhetoric about trusting experts, etc etc. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EH generally lists all buildings that have substantiated and reasonably substantial features (external or internal) built before 1840, so I'm afraid the above is simply not true. Either there isn't enough of the original remaining to list or the age claimed is not accurate. In either case, I'm seeing no notability based on the building itself. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason whatever to doubt the facts, so most likely the old building was partly or wholly replaced around 1870 as it appears from the frontage. The notability is for the pub, not only for the current building: it is of interest that a pub has stood on the site continuously since 1785. The coachway too may well be older than the current pub, as the documents imply. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The notability is either for the pub itself or for the building that houses it. There is little proof that the pub itself is notable, beyond a few unsubstantiated claims based on the statements of its owners, and the people who establish notability of historic buildings haven't done so in this case. If the coachway was historic enough to be notable then it would be listed, as I said! Therefore, it would appear that neither the establishment nor the building is notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1) This looks at first sight like a typical Victorian pub, but the existing pub may just have been re-fronted (so perhaps the back and upstairs are 18th century). The basic facts in the article come from the report by CAMRA of the 1785 licence held by John Nash, with the detail about Earl Spencer, as well as the remark that the coachhouse doors are still visible, so the basic facts are reliably sourced and I think notable.

2) The pub did become Best Community Pub of 2012, which is a claim to notability.

3) The John Young room upstairs has 'treasured memorabilia' of Young and his Wandsworth brewery; again, a claim to notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That source is a press release from the owners, Youngs. We already have that information on both the Youngs website and on their self-published book on their pubs (from which the article was written in the first place - I suspect the person originally writing the article didn't realise the book was not an independent source). In order to establish notability we need independent and reliable source to talk in depth about a topic. Anything from Youngs, who own the pub, is not considered independent per WP:PRIMARY, which is a policy, and was written to cover situations such as this. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We may rely even on self sources for uncontroversial facts; it is not likely that Youngs would lie about the existence of their own memorabilia, which is in any case a readily verifiable claim. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in independent third-party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, if in-depth coverage in independent third-party sources can be found, then I would support keeping the article. I did have a look myself before nominating the article, but couldn't find anything significant or independent. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep)

The references were not a brewery publicity release, but rather a scholarly historic analysis of the pubs own by Youngs. consequently it is an in depth study .

Although the publisher was the brewer, the book may be considered as independant as there is no advantage given by its contents (as in a similar publication, "The Guiness Book of Record")

The award for best pub in the country, most certainly makes it notable, which was the cause of the discussion being raised.

The subject is an entertainment venue, with historic background and should not be ttreated as a public company.

DonJay (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2014 (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.