Talk:Castle Inn

Notability
Serious doubts have been raised regarding the encyclopedic notability of this subject. See this discussion. A PROD notice was attached and subsequently removed without responding to any of the issues raised or improvement in the article. Unless some evidence of notability is introduced the article is likely to sent to AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added three decent refs. No need for an AfD! Edwardx (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was a bit distracted by the impending Doomsday which was at DYK today. Andrew D. (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
The following discussion has been moved from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion‎. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I've never proposed an AfD before, and I'm not sure whether The Castle Inn is suitable, or whether an alternative should be pursued. In my view the article subject is not sufficiently notable, and the article also may be spam (the creator of the article has only made one edit that's not connected to the article subject). According to the article's uncited text, The Castle Inn is 16th century, but this source states it is probably 18th century, and this source states late 18th century, and neither state that the inn is especially notable. Yes, it's a listed building, but only Grade II, and there are 53 listed structures in that civil parish alone, and they don't all deserve their own articles. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I'm seeing one problem right off. There appear to be several (maybe more?) Castle Inns that are Grade II listed. Also the article is basically unsourced which is another problem. Beyond which I note some Wikipedia Lists of listed buildings in the UK and from a glance most of the Grade IIs don't have stand alone articles. This makes me believe that Grade II is not in and of itself a Notability conferring criteria. WP:GEOFEAT says that historic buildings can be notable, but they require extensive coverage in RS sources. As of right now I'm not seeing a strong claim to notability. I also agree that the article reads like a soft advertisement. If we can locate a list of historic building on which this particular inn is mentioned I would suggest a BOLD redirect. No need for AfD unless someone can find some significant coverage in RS sources. (I am still looking.) In the absence of a suitable target for redirect I would PROD it and see what happens. Maybe someone will find some coverage that we missed. If all else fails we can always send it to AfD later on. There is nothing time sensitive about this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking at this. I had wondered about redirecting to West Lulworth, where the building is briefly mentioned (and additionally referred to as "one of the oldest pubs in Dorset"...), but in view of my findings detailed above, I would consider removing such text anyway, so we'd then have a redirect to an article that doesn't mention it... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed.  We can't redirect it to the place because it's one of hundreds of Castle Inns. As an example of how tenuous being listed is, the public house in the village I live in was built in 1575 and is also Grade II, as are one other building (that one's II*), the church and a phone box. And that's in a village of c.400 people. The only reason for such a building to be notable would be for it to pass GNG with extensive secondary coverage (I can find a number for "our" pub, but they're all listings or local news stories which mention it in passing). Black Kite (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sadly I am not finding anything that rings the notability bell here. I think I am going to PROD it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I also cannot find any mention of it in books in my possession, including Portrait of Dorset by Ralph Wightman (ISBN 0-7090-0844-9), Dorset Villages by Roland Gant (ISBN 0-7091-8135-3), Dorset Coast by Reginald Hammond (ISBN 0-7063-5494-X) and Highways and Byways in Dorset by Sir Frederick Treves (pre-ISBN). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Worse, it's clearly not the only example. Looking through some of the articles in Category:Public houses in England (over 500 articles), whilst some are clearly notable many are stubs showing no notability like Duke of York, Leysters or Seven Stars, Falmouth; worse, many are advert-like (Fauconberg Arms Inn or The Inn at Farnborough). Black Kite (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I notice that Fauconberg Arms Inn was proposed for speedy deletion in December 2008, though it survived that. But, more than six years later - still no decent sources.... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The PROD tag was removed without any explanation or improvement in the article. I have dropped a line on the editor's talk page. Perhaps he has found something that we missed. If not then I will probably send it to AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Ping and  There have been some improvements made to the article by  including some added sources. Is this enough? -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if the Slow Dorset ref can be considered reliable - others can maybe comment on that - but even if it is, the mention of The Castle Inn is confined to a list at the end of the chapter, concerning where to get food and drink, and I personally wouldn't use that to establish notability. The Dorset Pubs & Breweries ref, by Tim Edgell, may be self-published; the google books blurb about the author states that he lives in Nailsworth in Gloucestershire, and the registered address of the book's publisher, Amberley Publishing Ltd, is an address in Stroud, Gloucestershire - about 4 miles from Nailsworth. The last ref is for the building's listed status, but I think being Grade II listed is not of itself enough to establish notability, otherwise 52 other buildings/structures in that village (including 4 barns, several farm outbuildings, the church lych gate, a telephone kiosk and the walls surrounding the millpond) can also have their own articles. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Removal of a prod tag need not be accompanied by an explanation or an improvement in the article. The only action that is required by WP:DEPROD is to remove the - the other four steps are "encouraged, but not required". Indeed, step 4 is doubly optional - it says "Consider improving the article to address the concerns raised." That word "consider" implies that if you merely think about improving the article, but don't actually do so, step 4 is fulfilled. -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I was in no way suggesting his action was improper. My objective was to ascertain if the editor had any specific information or RS coverage that might help to resolve the concerns over notability without sending it to AfD. Thus far, I find the coverage to be almost entirely of the run of the mill sort. The only exception being the actual Grade II listing which I do not think satisfies GNG or GEOFEAT. (CC:   ). -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. Perhaps we should move this discussion to the talk page of the article? -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Moving this discussion seems sensible - I began this thread here because I wasn't sure which avenue to go down, and it probably isn't appropriate here to have a long discussion about specifics. Incidentally it appears my concern about the Tim Edgell book being self-published may be unfounded - there are other named directors at Amberley Publishing Ltd (although I find it difficult to ascertain the business structure from the company listings I looked at). However, I am still unsure about its reliability as a source (for a start it appears to be the only source which states the inn is 400 years old, in contradiction to both this reliable source and the Listed Building info. I am not convinced that the sources gathered so far are sufficient to establish notability. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Ping : At your convenience could you take a look at this article and the discussion above? Your input as a highly experienced editor would be appreciated. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that in England only grade I and II* listed buildings are normally considered notable, and i think it is extremely rare for an article on a building in either of those classes to be deleted. That has not been the case for II; many have been deleted. Personally I think that we should include grade II, on the basis of the WP policy NOT PAPER.   But this is complicated by the fact that many articles on listed buildings are written because of their present use for a commercial establishment; such articles are  not necessarily COI, but may have been written because the commercial establishment has seen to it that information is readily available.
 * For this particular article, the content seems a little oriented to the current function as an Inn, but, to my surprise, this was added not by the original editor, but a responsible and experienced contributor to many articles in this field especially on pubs, whose work I respect. I would not have written the last two paragraphs in the manner here--the word "popular" is a warning signal--and checking the references, I was a little disconcerted to see that they are a  fairly close paraphrase of  the source, Slow Dorset.
 * I gather the NHList refers to more detailed information--I assume it is not online, at least not yet. It would undoubtedly have material from which a fuller article could be written and documented. I recall that it has sometimes been argued that such material is a primary source, but if notability is accepted it can make a more substantial article.   I'm a little concerned by the reliance on current travel-oriented sources only for something that must have an historical record. The inn should have been included in county histories and on ordnance survey maps. I would accept description in VCH or a similar source as notability--the map just proves existence and the name at the time. (given the frequency of the use of all of its historic names, I am not sure a computer search will be very helpful--manual searching might be better & easier.)
 * As for merging, I canot se why we cannot merge/redirect to the town. Given the number of Inns with this title, the title would need to be disambiguated as "Castle Inn (Dorset)" or even "Castle Inn, (West Lulworth, Dorset)" (And I think by our naming conventions it would be "Castle Inn," not" The Castle Inn."   DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestions. I have moved the article to a less generic name and have posted proposed merge tags. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * (Comment copied from Talk:West Lulworth): I would oppose merging the articles, on the grounds that there is very little to be said about The Castle Inn except it is a Grade II listed 18th-century building. The West Lulworth article should mention that there are 53 listed structures in the parish, and then highlight the more significant ones; to describe the Castle Inn in detail (not currently possible with reliable sources) would be to make the article unbalanced. The Castle Inn article should either be deleted, or trimmed down to significant, well-sourced statements, awaiting further information (if there is any - though I suspect that detailed info will only be found in primary sources). Much of what currently exists in the article is either uncited, poorly sourced or downright trivial. The 2014 West Lulworth Conservation Area Appraisal Document (currently second on the list of this search) only mentions the Castle Inn because a late 18th-century estate map shows that some buildings stood where the pub's car park is now (see paragraph 26). The building itself is not picked out as for special mention in any way, unlike other modest buildings. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur that the case for notability is thin at best. To which end I have restored the notability tag, which should not be removed again w/o consensus on this page. As for the merge I tend to think a line or two could be justified. The mention or lack thereof of the other grade II sites in the area should not be a precondition per WP:OTHERSTUFF. Of course you are free to disagree and you can send the article to AfD if you want. However, I note that is working on the article and trying to get it up to scratch. So if you are inclined to send it to AfD I would ask as a courtesy that you give him a couple days to work on it. In the long term though, if a stronger case for N is not made and the merge proposal fails I would reluctantly support deletion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's all very well, but where is the consensus to restore the notability tag, and who are you to say that it should not be removed? And have you actually done anything to try to improve the article, and if not, why not? Edwardx (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The notability tag does not state that an article is not notable. It says that it might not be notable. It can be applied by anyone and should not normally be removed without consensus. When in doubt the burden of proof is on those claiming notability, not the reverse. Clearly notability is being questioned by a number of experienced editors. As for why I am "not trying to improve the article," I am. Unfortunately, I am not seeing anything that establishes notability yet. If/when I do, I will add it. I'm not trying to be a dick about this, but what I have seen so far, both in the article and in online searches amounts to trivial, routine and run of the mill coverage that would make almost every public house in the UK notable. As for ghosts, claims of haunting are so common in old buildings it's ridiculous. That sort of thing requires substantive coverage in mainstream RS (i.e. non-FRINGE) sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I second that. I have searched several times for good sources that describe the Castle Inn and establish notability, but so far to little avail. People should please note that I spend much of my time editing Dorset-related articles, in particular the small and secret rural places that are normally overlooked. If reliably sourced info about the Castle Inn can establish its notability, then it is just the sort of article that I enjoy working on. However, so far I think the case for a stand-alone article is very weak. Ad Orientem, I would support a merge if the merged text doesn't give disproportionate weight to the pub within the village context, though I am doubtful that that would be the case. Obviously the village article can be greatly expanded, but even then I would consider that the pub should likely only qualify for a brief mention. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This matter started because PaleCloudedWhite was unfamiliar with the deletion process. I am quite familiar with the deletion process as I have attended thousands of deletion discussions.  That includes multiple cases of articles about public houses such as Flask, Highgate.  In that case, what started as one article ended up as three as we also created The Flask, Hampstead and Upper Flask.  Based on such discussions, I am quite confident that historic public houses are usually quite notable, as authors like writing about them.  We already have ample sources for this particular topic to demonstrate significant coverage but we're only just getting started.  I have a particular affection for Dorset as I holidayed there as a child.  The public houses in this county seem to need some attention and so I have just ordered five books on the subject.  They will take a few days to arrive but I'm here for the duration.  As for the notability tag, this should go as it is being used as a badge of shame rather than for any productive purpose.  We already have editors engaged in improving and discussing the topic and we have links to online sources above.  This development activity belongs on the talk page, not the article itself, as readers do not come to the article to see us bickering and read our campaign slogans. Andrew D. (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I am more than happy to give some time as editors are making good faith efforts to remove concerns about notability. However, it is clear from the most recent comment that there is a deep and fundamental difference of opinion when it comes to the interpretation of the notability guidelines that I am increasingly convinced is going to have to be resolved by the community at AfD. Some of the more recent expansions seem almost silly. Dog treats are served at the bar? Seriously? As for maintenance tags being a "badge of shame," that's just absurd, bordering on histrionic. They are used to let other editors know that there are concerns about an article and to have a look at the talk page. I am getting the feeling that there is a desire on the part of some to shut down this discussion, or if that's not possible, to push it into a closet. For now I think I am going to withdraw the proposed merge as there does seem to be consensus, though for divergent reasons, against it. And to be honest I am coming around to 's POV. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

This kind of detailed coverage adds to the case for notability. Not sure if it was recently added or I missed it the last time I looked. In any event, that plus the Grade II listing writeup and the large quantity of minor and incidental references to the Inn do seem to have moved the ball quite a ways down the field. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)