Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flask, Highgate

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) Mz7 (talk) 03:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flask, Highgate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a conflation of two different places. The Flask Pub Flask Walk, Hampstead and The Flask in West Hill, Highgate. As it stands it is clear editor has mistaken them to be one and the same and notability of the subject is consequently compromised Tmol42 (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not noteworthy as a pub or a historic building (Grade II listed buildings are two-a-penny, and need something stronger to pass muster). Davidships (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep mentioned in a number of sources according to English Heritage which when combined with Grade II is more than enough for notability. Also, I see no conflation with The Flask in Hampstead here http://www.theflaskhampstead.co.uk/contact-us.php This article clearly relates to The Flask in Highgate. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see it was changed. Still notable though. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Fixing the accidental conflation only took me a few minutes, so the stated AfD rationale no longer applies. As for a possible new rationale as suggested by Davidships above, there is very signifcant history attaching to this pub. It "stood there at least as early as 1663", according to 1936's Survey of London: volume 17: The parish of St Pancras part 1: The village of Highgate.[1]. I will add some of this information. Edwardx (talk) 12:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Both places seem to be notable and so, rather than deleting, we need another page. AFD is not cleanup. Andrew (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Article looks fine now. Szzuk (talk) 11:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Looks OK, but I would prefer to see "not to be confused with" templates on both this and the Hampstead article, rather than each having a see also section. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the pubs are already disambiguated by the use of Highgate and Hampstead, I think see also entries are sufficient. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.