Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Old Queens Head


 * 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) — ΛΧΣ  21™  21:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The Old Queens Head

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

0. fails WP:CORP no sources 1. No assertion of notability 2. notability is not inherited 3. advert 4. COI Widefox ; talk 06:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC) Withdrawn: Keep hats off to Chiswick Chap! just keep the ghost side under control - this isn't a tourist rag! Widefox ; talk 12:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as is. However, if as suggested, the pubs does date back to the 1500s we are in a different ball game, but I doubt this is the case. As a venue, not particularly notable. Emeraude (talk) 11:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Spam, and no evidence of notability. As for dating to the sixteenth century, the article sources this fact to that well known Reliable Source Rumour. "The pub is said to have existed....") In any case, the article goes on to say that the pub was rebuilt in Victorian times, so at the most it is a nineteenth century pub on the site of an older one. Being a nineteenth century pub is no grounds for notability, nor is being built on the site of an older building, let alone being "said to" be built on the site of one. (Note: The article was created by a single purpose account, now blocked, that did nothing but write promotional articles about pubs all belonging to one company. A PROD was removed without any explanation by an IP that has never made any other edits.) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment It is a grade II listed building. Whilst not every grade II building necessarily warrants an entry, public houses and similar buildings generally do. Unfortunately, I could not find any suitable sources online to support the present article - the official pub and company websites are unsuitable even as primary sources. But I admit I did not look very hard. The obvious thing is to take an axe to the present article and substitute a brief piece sourced from the English Heritage list. But there is probably something in London reference works such as the relevant volume of the Buildings of England, so perhaps somebody else would volunteer to do this? --AJHingston (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - thanks AJHingston for the suggestion, which I've taken. I've removed the spam-text and ref, summarized the Grade II listing, added a little of the history and legend with refs. It just needs a nice photo now, but I think it looks worth keeping. Could the closing Admin note that the "Delete" votes above applied to the earlier state of the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep as rewritten by Chiswick Chap --AJHingston (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep It only takes a moment to find a source which was writing about this establishment in 1835: Walks through Islington. Kudos to Chiswick Chap for exerting himself to save this historic topic. Warden (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep i also agree with Chiswick Chap --JetBlast (talk) 09:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete- Even if this pub did verifiably date back to the 1500s, there are no sources available that prove that or that even mention this pub in any independent sense. Material pertaining to this pub is restricted to sources that do not meet referencing requirements. BarkingNigel (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you must be referring to the earlier state of the article? The article now has very reputable sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep with thanks to Chiswick Chap for the good work. Drmies (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY and improvements to the article. This topic at the very least meets WP:GNG. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:22, 5 October 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.