Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 21:45, 20 May 2024

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 Delete Notability requires multiple independent sources and the telegraph doesn't actually discuss in detail any of the content of the article and all you could glean from that was that the beer was adequate and the food was pants and such details does not a rounded article make. Spartaz 10:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The Royal Standard of England

The Royal Standard of England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable English pub, no references to back up any of the claims made in the artcle. Basically a non-encyclopaedic article. WebHamster 05:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Although the article does not mention it, the pub is the oldest free house in England. MortimerCat (talk) 07:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete

  "...the pub is the oldest free house in England."

  You state this as as fact but how do we know that it is true? Where is the evidence?

• Keep. Non-notable? . That was a quick search for the first UK news source I recognized (which is a short list). The article needs references, but that isn't a reason to delete. Justin 08:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You did read that article in the Telegraph didn't you? Did you count up how many "it claims" there were? Sounds like they are unverified to me thereby not making it a particularly good source for a reference. --WebHamster 08:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Absolutely none of the claims made by the pub in the article are verified. There are no sources quoted, presumably because there is none. In a recent article in the Bucks Free Press, local author and historian, Miles Green pointed to the Tithe Map of 1838 which lists the building now occupied by the RS as being an "orchard with cottage" - i.e. not a pub nor an alehouse. This article, and other similar entries elsewhere should be qualified with source references or deleted.The claims are unverified which indicates that the RS is more than likely not a notable English pub. Buckshistory (talk) 10:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and allow time to develop. The WebHamster's wheel was turbocharged this morning ... he kept hit a page I was working 9 minutes after I started it and as I was working on, despite that I informed him. He also has a wikiquette registered against him. Bully and offensive in language. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 10:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Your personal views on the nominator have no bearing whatsoever here, and are counter to Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. Please give a rationale for keeping that is based upon our Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines and that actually addresses the article at hand. Uncle G (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Before spreading your temper tantrums far and wide I suggest you look at the article history and history log before pontificating about giving it time. I'd say that three years is a reasonable amount of time to demonstrate notability and to supply verifiable sources, but that's just me. --WebHamster 14:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

? What 3 years?? Created less than 2 weeks ago, unless I'm missing something. All the editor's edits have been promoting this pub. In some of them he even says where it is. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You didn't look at the history log did you? --WebHamster 14:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah no, but the 05 seem irrelevant & the 06 ones are presumably about the flag not the pub, judging by where they were ripped off from. There's zero evidence the pub stuff has been put up before. Johnbod (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete without prejudice to recreation. So little useful information here it will be no loss. The history info is complete b******t. Doesn't even tell you where it is. PR rubbish. Johnbod (talk) 12:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment to the editor - please just add reliable sources to the article and this discussion will be closed to keep quickly. I googled and it gave some reliable ones. No need to attack other editors. Dekisugi (talk) 13:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I can't find anything on Google or Yahoo! to support the historical claims written by the pub (Cavalierinns admits in his Misplaced Pages profile that he lives there). The fact that these claims about the pub's age have been perpetuated over several years (if not decades) without challenge is surely no reason to accept them as true. Indeed, there are publicly available historical records which indicate that the building now occupied by the RS, while old, did not become a pub (or alehouse, beerhouse or freehouse) until the mid-19th century - hardly 900 years ago in Saxon times. Here are some key dates of record which can be supported by documents held in the Buckinghamshire County Records Office in Aylesbury and of which the local historian and Penn Parish Council Clerk, Miles Green has copies:

1577 No record of The Royal Standard (or its previous names, The Ship and The Britannia) in the Register of Alehouse Keepers.

1753 Still no record in the Register of Alehouse Keepers.

1838 - Tithe Map lists the RS building as an "orchard with cottage" - not a freehouse or pub or similar.

1841 Census shows RS as a beerhouse (not a licensed pub)

1872 - The Licensing Return is the first record of the RS as a pub, indicating that the building was first licensed as a public house in 1863.

I believe that the most simple and fairest way to resolve this debate would be to ask the contributor/inhabitant making the claims, to quote his or her sources?. Buckshistory (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep These entries on the pub and comments below made by Buckshistory are from the rival pub in the next village commenting on this pub. Look at their history and you can see they've uploaded pictures and made entries for The Red Lion and Knotty Green.

The Royal Standard of England claims to be the oldest Freehouse not the oldest pub. The pub is privately owned not owned by a pub chain or brewery - therefore it's a freehouse. Unlike the Red Lion who is owned by Enterprise Inns.

The pub's own tradition or stories says it's the oldest freehouse not public house, or when it was licensed to sell beer without food. The pub will need an entry in wikipedia and a simple description of its folk history. The Pub claims to be haunted but can you obtain a source? - only from its traditional verbal history and customer stories.

Buckshistory will you change the other pub's entries in wiki who claim they are the oldest in England by asking for their sources. Their claims are in their folk tradition - not by an appearance on an old map. (Old Maps are not sound either). Did the English make beer in domestic alehouses for centuries? Did they not make it before the church parishes appeared? Little villages had their alewife brewing away long before purpose built pubs came into being. This pub survived by being under the radar used by locals avoiding the eyes of the authorities - and that is the point - how it managed to survive in its location. I live in the pub. Why would I want my nearest pub to write my pub's folk history? And why would he??? User:Cavalierinns 25 January 2008

*Comment Above comment refactored back in order. No need to top-post to upstage the nominator, and it creates confusion about who opened the discussion. One emendation made due to change of order. --Dhartung | Talk 03:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• None of these comments are relevant. WP is not here to document local stories or tradition. If the pub wants to use unverified claims in its publicity and its entry in a pub guide then so be it, but that is not the way it's done around here. Claims need to be backed up with verifiable and documented evidence. Cavalierinns has all but admitted that there are none and that it's claims are are only backed up by word of mouth of the locals. Including general history elements of the evolution of drinking houses is just a smokescreen and can be equally disregarded. As regards the comment about who should write the article, well all I can say is that comes under the heading of WP:BOLLOCKS, at least Buckshistory has come up with verifiable info, which is more than the current resident has been able to do even when their WP:COI is obvious. --WebHamster 05:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - unsubstantiated claims do not an article make. - fchd (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment For the record (and hopefully to stop any more false accusations against another pub) I am not the owner, landlord or landlady of the nearby pub you refer to nor do I live there nor do I work there. Another case of Cavalierinns not backing up his claims?

This isn't a case of pub rivalry - the solution to the debate on this page is all too simple. Show the sources for the age claims for the RS and the pub is notable. No sources or evidence - and the article must be deleted. Them's the rules. Buckshistory (talk) 11:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, no evidence for notability claims. Fails WP:V, WP:N. --Dhartung | Talk 12:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Here is another case of WP:COI WebHamster you created the Red Lion's web site Cheers cavalierinns —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cavalierinns (talk • contribs) 17:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• What are you talking about? I write websites for musicians and bands, I don't write them for pubs. Now if you wish to prove your allegation with evidence there's plenty of space below. If you don't then I shall perceive it as both a personal attack and an attempt to get your own way using out and out lying as a tactic. Neither option looks good on your or your defence of the article. So please shit or get off the pot! --WebHamster 19:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I can't say keep, because I can't find any sources, but I know by my own original research that this pub ought to be notable, because I can remember drinking Owd Roger there in the 1970s, which was brewed on the premises and described by CAMRA as the strongest beer available on draught in Britain. I might have an old copy of the Good Beer Guide somewhere in a box in the attic that would confirm this, but it will probably be some time before I have the time to look for it. Maybe someone else could follow up this line of enquiry? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Query. Serving beer at least since 1841, and licensed premises since 1863, and possibly with singular mentions in CAMRA from the 1970s ... Is that not notable enough despite the blatant WP:BOLLOCKS to be found in the current version of the article? --Paularblaster (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Well chaps let me explain my paranoia...perhaps there is no link...But please look at the entry of Knotty Green – that Buckshistory contributed to - photo copyrighted to Red Lion and its the same picture on their new website. See a history of the the village and a history of the Red Lion, and you can buy even the book as "available in the pub". Please read this and then consider why I feel uneasy that Buckshistory wants to delete the entry for The Royal Standard of England.

Beer lovers - Owd Roger was brewed in the pub - I have a card dating 1938. The landlady would allow you to have 2 half-pints only, though the locals managed to dodge this!- Sorry no written sources just local traditions. Notable? - its has been in every Good Beer Guide since it began in 1974. And recently won 2 Publican national awards. The pub should have an entry in WP and no doubt will one day it will. Cavalierinns (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Dear Cavalierinns - as I have explained both here and on your own User talk page. Misplaced Pages is a reference source - and as such is meant to be accurate and verifiably so. If the RS is as old it claims - then it is a notable pub and, as such, is worthy of its own page in Misplaced Pages. However, as I have outlined, the historical evidence strongly indicates that the RS is not 900 years old and does not date back to Saxon times. The Register of Alehouse Keepers of 1753 required all beerhouses, alehouses, freehouses and pubs to be registered by law - otherwise an offence was being committed. The RS does not appear on that register (nor that of 1577). Then there's the Tithe Map of 1838 which has the site now occupied as the RS listed as an "orchard with cottage". If you have evidence to the contrary - that can support the pub's age claims - then great. Otherwise, I think you have to concede that the RS does not qualify for its own Misplaced Pages entry because those age claims are not verified by historical sources or records. It is one thing to, shall we say, embellish things on your own website and signage (there are lots of pubs that claim they have ghosts or that Charles I stayed there or that it was a favourite haunt of Dick Turpin). But it is quite another to present unverified claims as facts on Misplaced Pages, which is a worldwide reference source and requires entries to be factually accurate and verified. Otherwise the whole thing would be a mess. That's my motive. As I have said, I don't work at the Red Lion, am not the landlord or landlady - my "connection" is that I have enjoyed a very nice pint or two there (as indeed I have at the RS and other Penn Parish pubs) in the past.Buckshistory (talk) 11:47, 29 January 2008 (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.