Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hare and Billet


 * 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. ‑Scottywong | communicate _ 05:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hare and Billet

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

British public houses are a cultural icon, but that does not mean all pubs are notable. This one provided the setting for the ill-researched comments of a British MP, and most of the citations provides only trivial mention of the pub in question.  Ohc  ¡digame! 05:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The history of this place can be readily traced back to 1780 making it at least as old as the United States of America. The current state of its article is not a reason to delete per our editing policy. Andrew (talk) 09:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * delete Actually, the history can NOT be traced, at least not with what we are given in the article. I'm not seeing any text about the history of the pub that isn't inferred from an old picture of uncertain provenance and which doesn't depict the present building and may or may not depict a predecessor. All I find is a lot of older incidental references and all the usual review material that accrues to any English pub. Oh, and the condiment flap, of course. Mangoe (talk) 13:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment – try clicking on the Google Books search above, to find sources that aren't in the article. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * snarky comment Actually, I did. And once I got past all the travel book review-of-every-pub-in-the-London-vicinity stuff, what I get are nothing but incidental references to it as a landmark and a couple of very minor incidents which happened on the premises or in the vicinity. I see nothing, for instance, that says how old the present building is. Present a reference provides a history of the pub, and we can talk. Right now what we have is original (and dubious) research out of a bunch of primary sources. Mangoe (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep – Initial source searches are already demonstrating topic notability. For starters, read links at Google Books, and then read news media sources. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep A notable pub, with history that's traceable back to at least 1780. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The 1780 painting by a notable artist shows it dates back to at least 1780. Plus there has been significant press coverage of Hendogate, all of which seems to mention the pub. And most signifiacnt of all, it was my local when I lived a few doors down some 20-odd years ago. Edwardx (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I think that we ought to have WP:OLD redirected to WP:EXISTS. All we have, even after the article expansion is a bunch of trivial mentions within the context of some reckless and idiotic comment from some ignoramus speaking whilst behind parliamentary privilege. The painting also falls within the realm of WP:EXISTS. I don't think every subject ever painted by a notable artists is necessarily notable. It's not even clear that it's a painting of the pub – it sure doesn't look like it – it seems to be a picture of Black heath, although the artist chose to name the exact location by adding "near the Hare and Billet Inn". The print sources likewise all seem to use it as location identifiers, or near the location of a crime, just by virtue of being old. I reiterate: There are no substantive sources about the Hare and Billet and or its significance. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 03:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The painting in particular is a primary source that's being interpreted, as are all the other "well it's as least as old as this mention of it." Mangoe (talk) 10:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't mind admitting that, upon seeing the revisions and the image, I was fooled into thinking that the subject was notable. The real revelation came upon study of the information about the image, and when clicking on the GBooks research links offered by . There really is nothing but contextual and locational information. Quite insufficient to give the pub encyclopaedic presence. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 01:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The British Library seems to be respectable and reliable source. If you don't like the way that they approach the topic then that's just your opinion. The point is that such sources provide detailed facts about the place and so we have significant coverage.  The topic is new and we've only gotten started but the more we look, the more we find.  As the place has a long history, the process of assembling sources takes time.  Deletion would be disruptive to this process and there seems to be no reason for haste.  Why have you not considered alternatives to deletion as required by our deletion and editing policies? Andrew (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The British Library in itself is not a source of any description, let alone a "reliable source". It is a historical repository. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 06:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Just another London pub. Whether the silly business about the sauce is notable or not, it does not confer notability on the place.TheLongTone (talk) 11:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. A pub that is so historic that it hasn't even been given listed building status by English Heritage! Not even Grade II, the lowest grade. Yet again we have inflated claims for a pub's history that aren't backed up by the facts. For those that aren't aware of listing procedures, any pub anywhere near as old as this one claims to be would undoubtedly be listed. While there may have been an older inn on this site, it is clear that the current building is not it. It's basically a bog standard Victorian or Edwardian London pub. One of thousands. Just having the same name as an 18th century inn doesn't make it an 18th century inn. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The current physical building is unimportant. The similar Dog and Duck was demolished some time ago so that all that remains is an inn sign and that too may have been destroyed in a recent museum fire, but we still have an article about it.  What matters is that these places are or were landmarks and appear in the historical record.  This makes it feasible to assemble a good article about this history of the place over time.  We are an encyclopaedia with an historical perspective, not a current directory or register. Andrew (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but there must still be proof of notability. All I'm seeing now is "there used to be an inn of this name in the area and there's still a pub of this name in the area so it must be notable". Not so. There has to be a genuine reason for notability. If the building isn't notable then what is notable about it? Nothing that I can see. It's just a pub like countless others. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Your thinking is not policy-based as we are not required to demonstrate that our topics are special or different from other topics of a similar kind. But, as it happens, it is possible to prove what you want because the conservation appraisal for the area declared that, "the Hare and Billet public house is a key building ... and a notable landmark."  Q.E.D.  Andrew (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Where did I say we were "required to demonstrate that our topics are special or different from other topics of a similar kind"? I said we were required to demonstrate notability. Not the same thing at all. Actually, that document says the pub is a key building in this group (i.e. the cluster of buildings in which it is situated), which is a rather different kettle of fish. Naturally a pub is a key building in any group of buildings. Being a notable building among a dozen buildings hardly proves notability. You could also say that about a largish house. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You wanted a reason and you wanted proof. The document is an official one which states explicitly that the place is notable and gives reasons why.  If you don't like those reasons then that's just your opinion which, per WP:IDONTLIKEIT, is not admissable here. Andrew (talk) 07:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't claim that I don't like it or that my opinion isn't valid. That's guaranteed to wind up any editor, let alone one who's been here as long and taken part in as many AfDs as I have. The document does not confirm that this pub is notable enough for Wikipedia. It merely confirms that it is a recognisable building locally. Of course it is. It's a pub! We still have no evidence that it's any more notable than any of the other pubs in Britain. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The listing process is rather more nuanced than that. For example, the Golden Lion, Fulham can trace its origins back to 1455, and the current building is an 1836 rebuild. It also has extensive historic associations with Shakespeare and others. It is not listed. I have no doubt that there are pubs with some or all of their buildings dating before 1780 that are not listed. Edwardx (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's all good. Sources available online are somewhat thin; perhaps additional pre-internet print sources are available? Northamerica1000(talk) 14:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I very much doubt it. If it's an 1836 rebuild then it is not listed because it's an 1836 rebuild and there is almost none of the original structure left! That means the building is not notable. In this instance, the pub itself is still notable because of its historic associations. However, the pub we are currently looking at appears to be notable neither for its current architecture nor its history. Just being a pub with the same name as an older inn doesn't cut it. Neither does being featured (very incidentally) in a painting. There are many pubs in England that have been around in one form or another for centuries. But this fact alone is not sufficient for notability. And the "Hendogate" drivel doesn't count, as it really was not a notable enough incident to make the pub notable by association. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Your doubts appear to be misplaced. For example, The Armoury in Wandsworth, London was built in 1738, and that is not listed. Edwardx (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, from what I can tell, The Armoury claims to have been established in 1738, but the current building is no older than Victorian. So in what way does this disprove what I said? To be honest, it's very rare for a pub to actually be as old as the marketing claims it is. Such claims always need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt. Age sells! -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * But the pub itself doesn't seem to boast of its age. We have definite evidence of age from the British Library, which is not a promotional source.  I've started going through sources which Google doesn't know about and find it said in The Times that the place appears in the Newgate Calendar in the 1740s as a haunt of highwaymen.  The fact that the road is named after the inn seems quite strong evidence that it has been there a long time and we'd have to look through old maps and such to establish the details.  The page has only been up for a week and so, per our editing policy, time should be allowed for this.  Hasty deletion seems quite inappropriate while those !voting delete seem do not seem to have given any consideration of alternatives to deletion. The worst case here is that we'd have an entry for the place in the Development section of Blackheath per our editing policy.  Deletion seems out of the question. Andrew (talk) 07:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but this is getting silly. All we have is evidence that an inn of the same name existed in the 18th century. Nobody is disputing that. What we do not have is evidence that this pub stood in the 18th century. What makes this pub notable? Nothing that I can see. It's just a pub. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If you think deletion would be disruptive to continuing research, I would invite you userfy it so that it can be worked on in your private space. Alternatively, you could wait until it's been deleted and ask an admin to restore the content to your userspace – it works out to be the same either way. Probably the best course of action as its notability has yet to be demonstrated. Regards, --  Ohc  ¡digame! 04:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - More sources:
 * "PubSpy reviews The Hare and Billet, Blackheath". News Shopper. July 25, 2013.
 * Evening Standard London Pub Bar Guide 1999 S S Int. p. 100.
 * "Hare and Billet". Time Out (London). July 18 2011.
 * – Northamerica1000(talk) 08:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks North, impressive research from yourselves and Andrew as always. Interesting to note this historic pub has in fact been serving Londoners since the 1600s! This additional extensive coverage in reliable, independent sources puts the policy based case for keep beyond doubt. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * – Northamerica1000(talk) 08:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks North, impressive research from yourselves and Andrew as always. Interesting to note this historic pub has in fact been serving Londoners since the 1600s! This additional extensive coverage in reliable, independent sources puts the policy based case for keep beyond doubt. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The Further Reading section shows reliable sources that have specifically covered this place. So it easily passes the GNG.   D r e a m Focus  22:09, 17 February 2014 (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.