Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Harrow, Steep


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The Harrow, Steep

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I don't see any reason on why this pub should have its own article. It is a Grade II listed building, but so are many other pubs in England. I don't see what makes this significant or important enough to justify having its own article. A quick search isn't inspiring either, it just looks like an ordinary pub and is nowhere near notable enough to have its own article. JAG UAR   21:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep:
 * Listed building with Historic England
 * On the national register of historic pub interiors
 * The Guardian: "One of Britain's timeless, rural watering holes"
 * The Daily Telegraph: "The Harrow at Steep is always in any saloon-bar symposium of great pubs"
 * Philafrenzy (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: Passes WP:GNG. There are dedicated articles specifically about this pub (and just this pub) in two national newspapers. In any event, no valid deletion rationale has been given. Edwardx (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep due to the sources in the article indicating passing WP:GNG. Nice work Philafrenzy and Edwardx.   The nom should understand no matter how "ordinary" a topic may seem after a brief look, it can still pass our notability guidelines.--Oakshade (talk) 03:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Grade II listing doesn't automatically make a building notable, but it's an indication that it quite probably is, and with all the other things I think it surmounts the notability bar. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I did stop there about thirty years ago because my young daughter was thirsty. It looks a particularly ordinary, not very ancient, country pub. Notable perhaps for not being poshed up like so many. I am not sure a couple of writeups by national journalists who may have a local interest really confer notability.Charles (talk) 10:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that WP:GEOFEAT says that all protected heritage buildings in every country are presumed to be notable. We haven't in the past applied this to every listed building in England (only to those with Grade I and II* listings), but maybe we should do given that it does seem to be applied to other countries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope you are not serious. There are hundreds of thousands of Grade II listed buildings in the UK, most of them quite ordinary houses or barns.Charles (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm fully aware of that. However, note that there are currently 80,000 listings on the US National Register of Historic Places, in a country with a much shorter history of built heritage than the UK, and we already consider all of them to be notable and worthy of articles. The vast majority are of no greater notability than the average Grade II-listed building in England and many of them of considerably less notability. And again, why should WP:GEOFEAT not apply to the UK? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree, and once the article is done it is relatively low maintenance as they don't die, win an election, or bring out a hit record. I agree, however, that we don't need an article for every individual listing. Many can be combined, e.g. a row of similar houses can be dealt with as one, or the subject can be dealt with inside another article. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would agree that on a street with a number of listed houses they should not all have individual articles, but the street itself probably should. Or a farm or industrial complex which has several listed buildings - the complex should have an article, but not every listed building. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I wonder how that will work with all the II listed primary schools that are redirected as non-notable. No. There are just too many listed buildings over here to contemplate articles on every group let alone every one. Ayway WP:GEOFEAT actually says Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments can be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. They require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. They are not inherently notable.Charles (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact, any listed primary school that's proposed for deletion is kept as long as that listed status has been highlighted in the article or discussion. Can't remember one not being. You seem to have conveniently missed the first criterion on WP:GEOFEAT (I really can't imagine how you did, given you spotted the one beneath it): "Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and which verifiable information beyond simple statistics are available are presumed to be notable." Kindly explain why that does not apply to listed buildings in England, given that, if nothing else, every listed building has a writeup beyond simple statistics on Historic England's website. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/Holmlea Primary School for a listed building that was nominated last month, with a Speedy Keep result. Nominating articles for AfD creates a lot of work for other editors. It would be more considerate of others if nominators took the trouble to study WP:BEFORE first, so that AfD could focus on the genuinely debatable cases. Edwardx (talk) 09:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I take the paragraph specifically on buildings as being the standard for buildings. The vague term "Artificial geographical features" is less specific and may include such things as artificial mounds. What you are saying is your interpretation of the guideline but it is not written there. "significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources" means more than a single listing in a very long list of protected buildings.Charles (talk) 09:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, a building is clearly an "artificial geographical feature" by any definition. What GEOFEAT is saying is that those listed as heritage features are presumed notable, but others that aren't listed may be notable depending on the circumstances. It's quite clear. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely correct. Heritage buildings are presumed notable and other artificial features may be if GNG is met. No doubt on the matter I think. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are correct it indicates that the guideline is US-centric. It is good that we are using some WP:COMMONSENSE in not blindly applying the guideline to the lowest type of listing in UK. WP:GNG is just as valid a guideline. Long may this continue.Charles (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2015 (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.