Template:Did you know nominations/Warwick Castle, Maida Vale


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Warwick Castle, Maida Vale

 * ... that Howard Marks concluded a drug deal at the Warwick Castle (pictured), with half of a consignment of Thai grass hidden in a car parked outside? Source: link Mr Nice, By Howard Marks. Canongate Books, 7 Jul 2011.
 * Reviewed: Jainti Dass Saggar

5x expanded by Edwardx (talk), Widefox (talk), and Philafrenzy (talk). Nominated by Edwardx (talk) at 13:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC).


 * Misleading as Warwick Castle is well known. Suggest disambiguate using "pub" and/or "London". Source is a primary, if that's relevant for DYK. Widefox ; talk 14:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * DYK has a long tradition of hooks that can be somewhat misleading. In any event, the image clearly shows it is not a "real" castle. Edwardx (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * ALT1: ... that drinkers at the Warwick Castle pub in Maida Vale (pictured) have included the artist Edward Ardizzone, the drug smuggler Howard Marks, the man who set up the first Ann Summers sex shop, and Richard Branson? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philafrenzy (talk • contribs) 10:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Article is new enough, was expanded more than enough to stop an AfD stone dead, the hook is interesting and cited to Howard Marks' biography. Obviously I register "Warwick Castle, Maida Vale" as a pub immediately, but if you put (pictured) next to "Warwick Castle" most people will get it. I had the pleasure of seeing Mr Marks do a lecture about 20 years ago and the auditorium absolutely reeked of marajuana with people blatantly skinning up in their seats (not me, I was just interested in hearing what he had to say!), so I can't see he would have had an issue with the facts presented here. Oh, and you'll need a QPQ before this gets queued. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  22:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm bringing this back from queue as has raised concerns about the hook - perhaps we could just go with ALT1 instead? Also QPQ needs to be done. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  22:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I'm sure checked for the QPQ, but in any case, the main hook (while actually interesting) seems highly unlikely to be true at all.  ALT1 seems reasonably okay to me.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Why should the first hook be unlikely to be true? All right its from his autobiography, but it was published by Secker & Warburg, not self-published, and the source was a large scale convicted drug smuggler. The size of the "consignment" is not mentioned in the hook or the article and is irrelevant. The word just means a quantity of uncertain size. I suggest it is highly likely to be true. If necessary, the statement can simply be qualified with "according to Howard Mark's autobiography" or similar wording. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The size of the deal is mentioned twice in the link, 2000 kilos. And it's not "irrelevant" if it's unlikely to be true.  What you "suggest" is irrelevant.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * All we assert is that a convicted drug dealer did a drugs deal. The fact he was probably a bit vague about the size of the deal is not relevant unless we mention the size in the hook or article. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you say "half the consignment" which equates to 1000 kilos. It is absolutely relevant because it's utterly impossible.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no need to engage in OR about how much drugs can be fitted in a saloon car as you did elsewhere and no basis for rejecting the first hook. We write from the sources. Both the hook and the article are sound and already use a non-specific quantity. They just need a slight qualification that it was according to his reminiscences. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, I asked a simple question, how much can a "car" take fully loaded? The answer is much less than a ton.  The fact that the article and hook decided to ignore the blatantly impossible task of shoving a ton of hash into a "car" doesn't make it right to create an obfuscated sentence and hook about it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Neither the article or the hook make any claim that the car contained any specific amount. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yet both are sourced to the claim that there was a 2000 kilo consignment, half of which Marks claimed went in his car. Are you not getting the problem here?  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Everyone knows that drug shipments get split up as they go through the pipeline. As a native English speaker you will also know that half does not necessarily mean exactly half, it's often a turn of phrase for a non specific quantity. There is also mention elsewhere in the source of a van. Perhaps by car he really meant van. We don't need to obsess about this. We have a convicted drug dealer saying he did a drug deal of some sort in a named place. It's fine. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it's not fine. This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of "everyone knows" stories.  The source says a car, the source says half a consignment, the source says the consignment was 2000 kilos.  It's not fine.  Find another hook.  This is becoming tedious now.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. You accused me of OR about three sentences back. Review your last post here.  OR in every single sentence.  Amazing. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * But not in the hook or the article. That's the point, we write from the sources. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What?! This is circular. Just find a more appropriate hook, not one which is patently fake. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not patently fake. Convicted drug dealer writes in his memoirs that he did a deal with some drugs in a car outside a particular pub. The fact that the exact amount involved is questionable is irrelevant.
 * If a convicted bank robber writes in his memoirs that he robbed Barclays Bank of £1M but it more probably was £0.5m we can still say here "According to the memoirs of bank robber X, he stole money from Barclays Bank". We don't need to start doing calculations of how much money can fit in a Ford Mondeo. Philafrenzy (talk) 06:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It was purely a demonstration of how utterly false the story was, and thus how utter bunkum the hook was. Sorry if that wasn't clear enough for you.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Alt 2... that according to his memoirs, Howard Marks concluded a drug deal at the Warwick Castle (pictured), with a consignment of Thai grass hidden in a car parked outside? Philafrenzy (talk) 07:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Pinging Ritchie to please comment on Alt1 and Alt2. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I like Alt 2, but think it would be fairer for a third party to sign off on this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Approving ALT2, which is qualified so that the only "fact" is that Marks claimed the deal happened. This fact checks out to the autobiography. Regarding the concerns above, the debated size of the deal is not included in the article or the hook. Moreover, even if it's false or exaggerated, we have a claim in a best-selling book by a notable drug dealer about an event at a notable location; the claim therefore does not rely on its veracity to be notable, for even if it is subsequently debunked or qualified, it would still be reasonable to include it (and the vetting) in the article. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2018 (UTC)