This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article deals with and is a non-subject. It should be removed right away, without delay. See discussion on my user page. Ad43 ( talk) 23:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you once again. A tag like {{db-g1}} is what I had in mind. Ad43 ( talk) 00:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
All right, so let me repeat my argumentation here. This really is an irrelevant contribution from any encyclopedic POV.
Zandberg is no more than an average urban quarter of
Breda, like many others. In its present built shape it only dates from the thirties, when it became an extension of the fast growing city of Breda. Before that, it did not or hardly exist as a separate hamlet, let alone as one with its own history and traditions. It cannot in any way be compared to old authentic villages such as
Princenhage and Ginneken, with their own old history and traditions, that became parts of Breda somewhat later. On these former old villages, absorbed by Breda, separate articles could be useful indeed, but really not on an arbitrary quarter like Zandberg.
There is no respectable reason to write an article about this mediocre quarter. Somebody has tried to promote this quarter, only because it has given rise to the Sacrament Church Choir. S/he then better writes an article on that particular subject.
Because of this article's utterly futile nature, it should not have escaped proper early filtering out. -- Ad43 ( talk) 13:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
To my opinion it is much too much honour to deal with this classified non-issue in any serious formal matter. Deletion procedures should be reserved for controversial and disputable articles, not for odd and disconnected air bubbles like this. Ad43 ( talk) 14:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that this article really belongs to the category geographical matters. Deletion would definitely be uncontroversial. It looks like sheer promotion of somebody's accidental residential neighbourhood, without any independent motivation. It is a clumsy stub too. Only packaging material. We should get rid of it, so Malcolmxl5 and/or Private Sweety, feel free to do with it whatever you want. Thank you. Ad43 ( talk) 20:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. I only did my duty. Ad43 ( talk) 20:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Do not misinterpret my honest intentions. Neither do I blame you for your procedural preoccupations. It is your job, I guess. My role is signalling blatant non-issues that my fortuitous expertise might come across. That I regard my moral duty. It is up to you to make a proper use of it. My pleasure. Ad43 ( talk) 20:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh oh. A bad loser and bad manners too. Ad43 ( talk) 21:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, well. I wish you good luck. I have never blanked something here but for this mere nonsense article. Do not be childish and frustrated, Sweety. I am not your private enemy. Ad43 ( talk) 22:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article deals with and is a non-subject. It should be removed right away, without delay. See discussion on my user page. Ad43 ( talk) 23:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you once again. A tag like {{db-g1}} is what I had in mind. Ad43 ( talk) 00:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
All right, so let me repeat my argumentation here. This really is an irrelevant contribution from any encyclopedic POV.
Zandberg is no more than an average urban quarter of
Breda, like many others. In its present built shape it only dates from the thirties, when it became an extension of the fast growing city of Breda. Before that, it did not or hardly exist as a separate hamlet, let alone as one with its own history and traditions. It cannot in any way be compared to old authentic villages such as
Princenhage and Ginneken, with their own old history and traditions, that became parts of Breda somewhat later. On these former old villages, absorbed by Breda, separate articles could be useful indeed, but really not on an arbitrary quarter like Zandberg.
There is no respectable reason to write an article about this mediocre quarter. Somebody has tried to promote this quarter, only because it has given rise to the Sacrament Church Choir. S/he then better writes an article on that particular subject.
Because of this article's utterly futile nature, it should not have escaped proper early filtering out. -- Ad43 ( talk) 13:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
To my opinion it is much too much honour to deal with this classified non-issue in any serious formal matter. Deletion procedures should be reserved for controversial and disputable articles, not for odd and disconnected air bubbles like this. Ad43 ( talk) 14:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that this article really belongs to the category geographical matters. Deletion would definitely be uncontroversial. It looks like sheer promotion of somebody's accidental residential neighbourhood, without any independent motivation. It is a clumsy stub too. Only packaging material. We should get rid of it, so Malcolmxl5 and/or Private Sweety, feel free to do with it whatever you want. Thank you. Ad43 ( talk) 20:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. I only did my duty. Ad43 ( talk) 20:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Do not misinterpret my honest intentions. Neither do I blame you for your procedural preoccupations. It is your job, I guess. My role is signalling blatant non-issues that my fortuitous expertise might come across. That I regard my moral duty. It is up to you to make a proper use of it. My pleasure. Ad43 ( talk) 20:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh oh. A bad loser and bad manners too. Ad43 ( talk) 21:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, well. I wish you good luck. I have never blanked something here but for this mere nonsense article. Do not be childish and frustrated, Sweety. I am not your private enemy. Ad43 ( talk) 22:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)