Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 14
- 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The result was Withdrawn by nom, myself. (non-admin closure) Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 08:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Old Wolverton Road Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Prod-ed and de-prod-ed this a day or two ago, because I wasn't 100% sure how it might be seen to pass GNG (note that bridges, under WP:NBUILD, do not have specific notability requirements, the two lines circle back to WP:GNG. I'm putting it to AfD now as I do not believe this bridge satisfies GNG, because save for being a listed structure, I cannot see how it is actually notable in its own right. Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. About me; Talk to me. Farewell fellow editor... 00:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. About me; Talk to me. Farewell fellow editor... 00:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. It has an official listing on the National Heritage List for England. This passes the historic requirement at WP:NBUILD.4meter4 (talk) 02:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. - See ref number 1 - "Railway Bridge 171D (Skew Bridge) (1389359)". National Heritage List for England. — Maile (talk) 05:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 14 November 2024 (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.
- 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Lords and margraves of Bergen op Zoom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Uncited article on an unnotable office. -Samoht27 (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, Royalty and nobility, and Netherlands. -Samoht27 (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to Bergen op Zoom#History (provided it is properly sourced). That article mentions the margravate. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Merge indeed. Title abolished in 1795 is a fascinating footnote and barely more. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I think the article is too large to merge into the Bergen op Zoom history section, the result would be too unbalanced. I have provided three references. Bergen op Zoom is very proud of its history as margraviate. The palace of the margraves is a wonderful museum. The article on the list of Lords and Margraves is very interesting and useful.Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. Neither article is even remotely large. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Size is a relative concept. The history section in the Bergen op Zoom article is four paragraphs, 320 words. Very short. The Lords and margraves article is 200 words. Large, relative to the short history section. Merge the two and the result is unbalanced, in my opinion. That´s all. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. Neither article is even remotely large. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Given there is a museum dedicated to the margraves at Bergen op Zoom, it is a historically notable topic.4meter4 (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I presume there was no effort made to establish the nature of the 'musuem dedicated to the margraves at Bergen op Zoom'. It is the Markiezenhof, the oldest city palace in the Netherlands and it is not 'dedicated to the margraves'. And its existence and purpose doesn't make the list of lords and margraves of that place any more notable, properly referenced, germane or necessary. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- The Markiezenhof is not exactly a museum about the margraves, it is a museum named after the margraves. Still, the three Stijlkamers, three rooms of the permanent exhibit, are dedicated to Margrave Maria Henriette de la Tour d´Auvergne. So, a part of the museum is dedicated to the margraves, in particular to one of them. Anyway, I have added one more reference, a 170 page book specifically about the Lords and margraves, to further strengthen my case that the topic deserves a standalone article. Best, Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - European noble titles / families are notable when adequately sourced, and this one is. It's a bit too large to merge comfortably to the Bergen op Zoom article. Ingratis (talk) 07:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 04:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Feel that reasons stated by keep voters above are just so. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2024 (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.