Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golden Lane, London


 * 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. WP: SNOW: No consensus to delete has emerged after 24 hours' discussion, and is unlikely to do so in future. SN54129 20:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)   SN54129  20:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Golden Lane, London

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Notability not established with substantive sources. Every street in London has some sort of business offices or residences on it, that doesn't mean it's notable and needs an article Reywas92Talk 05:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 05:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 05:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the Fortune Theatre and the Golden Lane Estate have their own articles, but no-one appears to have spotted the Golden Lane Genuine Beer Brewery in the history books (e.g. ISBN 9781847550026 page 551). &#9786;  Uncle G (talk) 06:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment If the consensus here is to delete then the title should be redirected to Golden Lane Estate. Thryduulf (talk) 09:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment It just needs expanding which I am in the process of doing. I easily found multiple in-depth sources. It should look very different in 24 hours. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The company ran into excise problems in 1807, when HM Excise decided that since retailers were selling the beer in units smaller than 0.5 firkins (20 l) the company would not qualify for the statutory duty-free "wastage" allowance of 3 barrels in every 36. A court case ensued, which hinged on the way that the company had been initially financed with partnership "shares" being sold to some 600 London publicans to raise GB£250,000 (equivalent to £20,727,704 in 2020) Arguing that the publicans were (what would now be called) "silent" or "sleeping" partners, with Brown and Parry the "managing" partners, the Brewery prevailed and saved an estimated GB£6,000 per year in excise duty. Another legal problem ensued with the charge this time being that the brewery was adulterating its beer, with isinglass, and again the company prevailed in court. In fact, the brewery had arranged for nearby yeast dealer James Butcher to buy up discarded fish skins from fishmongers and dissolve them in stale beer, in search of an alternative to islinglass. The casks which had been seized from the brewery premises were on public display (and smell) at the yard of the Excise Office and Brown was characterized in Satirist as a businessman with a wide variety of shady schemes afoot. Although, as in the previous case, the company partners suspected the hands of its competitors in the prosecution, in fact the competitors, who had been adulterating their products, shared a common interest with the Golden Lane company in not letting a prosecution for fining succeed. A witness for the defence at the trial was engineer William Murdoch, who claimed to have devised this fish-skin process and who had sold it as a trade secret to a consortium of London brewers, and who testified that it was 'exactly the same thing' as isinglass. The defence argument, supported by the testimony of Humphry Davy, despite his never done any experiments with the fish-skin process himself or being able to answer any questions about the brewery specifically, was that the fish-skin, like isinglass, was not an additive, because it sunk to the bottom of the vat and precipitated out, and that it should be treated by the government the same as isinglass was. Judge Archibald Macdonald found for the defence that is was unreasonable to object to innovations in brewery practices that were thanks to advances in the science of chemistry, a decision that would be later reflected in an 1817 change to the law on finings.
 * None of this has to do with Golden Lane. If you think the Brewery is notable, make an article for that by itself rather than lumping these topics together because they are on the same street. Reywas92Talk 14:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Thanks to the kind expansion efforts of Philafrenzy, notability is clear, with WP:SIGCOV demonstrated. Edwardx (talk) 11:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The Golden Lane Estate is in the Ward of Cripplegate and the east side of the street is in St Luke's, London. Content about the Brewery or whatever else should be merged and described in the history or geography of those neighborhoods, rather than the individual 400-meter-long street. London has tens of thousands of streets that have any arbitrary businesses or residences on them, from which they don't inherit notability; the sigcov that's been found is not about the street broadly. Reywas92Talk 15:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a bit late to reply to the point above, but a reply is needed. A street is two rows of buildings (and a bit of space between them for driving cars). If the history of those buildings and those who've lived and worked in them is colourful enough, and documented, then the street is worthy of an article. If you're not allowed to consider the buildings in it when assessing the notability of a street, a street could never be notable; the same problem would apply to neighbourhoods - they're only notable because of the people and buildings that make them. The idea of merging into neighbourhoods also misunderstands how London, and most UK cities tick. Neighbourhood definitions are sometimes a bit fuzzy, and when they're properly defined, often a street is the boundary, and to most of us it would be completely illogical to discuss the history of the buildings on the north side of a street in a different article to those on the south, when we think of the two buildings as being essentially in the same place. Elemimele (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Thank you, Philafrenzy and . Reywas92, my Uncle's most recent addition, for instance, is quite valid in terms of establishing notability for the subject. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, please Keep, a fascinating little article, exactly the sort of stuff that makes encyclopaedias worth browsing; with thanks to and  for their additions, and to anyone else who's been working on the article. Elemimele (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep...likewise thank you and . Whispyhistory (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep not sure about the “20th century” section tbh but overall notability is clear. Mccapra (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment If we ever wanted an example of failure to observe WP:BEFORE! Nominator take note. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable and fascinating. --Bduke (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.