Deletion of Dog & Bull

Comment: not enough significant coverage from independent reliable sources to pass .  Most of the keep !votes hinge on whether or not Grade II listed buildings meet the auto-notability requirements as per , however, in other discussions on other topics, any classification with so many recipients would fail that test (e.g. Silver Star recipients - approximately 150k). , while saying that buildings "may" be notable due to their historic record, clearly states that these must be backed up "significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability", which is clearly not the case here. I think {{u|Black Kite}}'s suggestion regarding an RFC on grade II buildings is warranted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:GEOFEAT||WP:NBUILDING)

Comment: meets  ''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 for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable.'' Grade 2 listing meets this, as this is a National listing not local
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBUILDING)

Comment: as a listed building per . Yes, "Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage" does apply to buildings. What else do you think that paragraph is referring to exactly? The paragraphs underneath simply provide further guidance on features that are ''not'' "officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GEOFEAT)

Comment: Nationally listed in the UK, therefore passes . We have had this discussion at AfD many times, and it always ends up as a "keep
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBUILDING)