Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Barley Mow, Clifton Hampden


 * 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The result was   speedy keep – no "delete" recommendations and nomination has been withdrawn. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 12:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The Barley Mow, Clifton Hampden

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Declined prod. Prod removed with rationale 'notable'; I disagree. It has references but these are to pub guides and other non-reliable sources. It's listed, but not every listed building is inherently notable, it has to meet the general notability guideline, which in my opinion this does not. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong keep: The pub has been described as the best known of all Thames pubs in a WP:RS and is included in the architectural historian Sir Nikolaus Pevsner's The Buildings of England series as a building of historical note, dating from 1352. It also has literary connections, being mentioned in the 1889 novel Three Men in a Boat. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Keep - you forgot to mention that it's mentioned in the classic book Three Men in a Boat (more than many listed buildings are) and I'm not sure why you think that the Buildings of England series by Nikolaus Pevsner and others is an unreliable source - the books in that series are the leading references works for architecture in each county. It wouldn't hurt to be expanded - so what's new? - but there's more than enough here for this 14th-century building to pass the GNG already. BencherliteTalk 20:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a reliable source, yes. However, that does not mean that every building listed in it automatically becomes notable enough for an article. Significant coverage in reliable sources is what the GNG says - not any old coverage in reliable sources. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So which other of the sources in the article do you now concede are reliable sources? BencherliteTalk 21:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You tell me. Beerintheevening? Is that reliable? Pevsner is reliable. Three Men in a Boat is famous, but self-evidently not a reliable source as it's a humorous book. That's pretty much all I have to say really. In my opinion, there is not enough significant coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate that the pub is notable. I'm not going to argue with you tit-for-tat, I'd prefer to let consensus decide. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - quite evidently notable, based on the three published book references alone. Sionk (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Quite apart from being a famous mediaeval pub, the article is already properly referenced. Even if it didn't serve beer, Pevsner and being a Listed Building would be enough to make it notable; being named by Jerome K Jerome makes it pass with flying colours. And thirdly, it must be in every pub guide and advice to the tourist you can think of. Cheers! Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per WP:SK - "obviously frivolous or vexatious nomination". Warden (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Maybe you could let me know whereabouts on this diagram that comment fits. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's off the scale because there isn't an argument worth responding to. The nomination tells us at the outset that there's no consensus, that the article has multiple sources and that the building is listed.  That's three strikes already and the subsequent comments further confirm that you're pissing into the wind.  What's needed now is for this discussion to be speedily closed to spare you further embarrassment.  I considered closing it myself per WP:SNOW but like to see at least one call for Speedy Keep for this and so provided one. Warden (talk) 07:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - not a speedy, I don't think the nomination is frivolous, but I do think the age of the building and its coverage in sources like Buildings of England, The River Thames, etc. make it more notable than more recently created buildings and businesses that have a larger volume of coverage simply due to the virtue of their having been created in the internet age. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Listed building status almost always suggests adequate notability, and Pevsner plus the literary mention more than adequate additional sources. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nominations withdrawn. It's clear where consensus is going, and although I don't necessarily agree, consensus is what counts. Any editor who knows how feel free to close this. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2012 (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.