Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fortifications of Antwerp

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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fortifications of Antwerp

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

No assertion of notability, no reliable sources, and the connection between the title of the article and the content is tenuous. Even after editing for tone, the article is about things that supposedly no longer exist, but there's nothing RS to back up any historical assertion made within the article. For that reason, I see no need to merge poorly-sourced material into an otherwise stable article related to Antwerp - it's not qualitatively beneficial. MSJapan (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable subject. No longer existing is not a reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as notable sub-article for historical information; does need RS citing. Kierzek (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Necrothesp: you're missing the point here. The article claims these things no longer exists, not me. The article then cites no historical sources to show these constructions ever did exist. MSJapan (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Two points here. 1) Antwerp was certainly a fortified city (as were all major towns before the modern era), so an article on its fortifications is clearly acceptable. 2) We are here to debate the notability of the subject, not the quality of the article. Is the subject a notable one? Clearly it is. Obviously it needs more sources and other articles need to be linked from it (e.g. National Redoubt (Belgium)), but that does not call for the deletion of the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a few points
- a) sources : a lot of notable sources will be appended as such it's evident to attribute a phrase or paragraph to a single source
- b) Antwerp is a major historic city in the development of the Lowcountries, itś development is key to the history of the Lowcountries (Netherlands and Belgium),
  - b1) the fortifications of Antwerp are an historical fact and the fortifications were constructed up to the interbellum and some of the installations are still in use
  - b2) archeological evidence is abundantly available, the article claims the (oldest) constructions do no longer exist, which is a true claim, that doesn't mean they have entirely disappeared and are no longer there at all, remainders are visible, or can be visited (which underlines that the construction did exist.
- I am a major contributor to this article and I admit a lot can be improved, I do object to the practise of nominating an article for deletion before discussing the matter, without raising and discussing the issue first in the talk page. The action and the practise of nominating an article with valid content before any discussion - which i find not only objectionable, offensive, degrading and vandalising among other things - is NOT an opening for discussion itś the final action and conclusion of the dicussion (whatever the bots may say) ... therefore I will NOT edit or contribute further to the article until this deletion insult has been removed , and apologies formulated on the talk page for this vandalising action . --DerekvG (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even the briefest Google search demonstrates that lots of sources exist on this topic, so notability isn't a problem. AfD should not be used to resolve concerns over article content, except for where WP:TNT may apply, which isn't the case here. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable topic as per available sources; worthy of further development. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remove ASAP as User:MSjapan prefers to first nominate this article for deletion before attempting to raise any issues in the talk page of the article ( as outlined in all policy documents of wikipedia), i think the article should be removed irrespective of content being valid or not and wether or not itś sourced , that does not seem to be the issue. --DerekvG (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - from a quick look at Google Books it seems the subject meets the significant coverage requirement to be notable per WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article needs a lot of work, but per all the above the subject seems to be notable. This list shows that the "Fortificiations of X" article is hardly unprecedented. ¡Boz zio! 05:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep the subject is clearly notable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:21, 23 September 2016 (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.