WIKIPEDIA:ARTICLES FOR DELETION PONTE VELHA DE PADASTROS

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. Procedural keep - no prejudice against speedy renomination separately. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Ponte Velha de Padastros

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Uncited, non-notable, mostly single-liners. Should probably be redirected to List of bridges in Portugal, but that has been reverted so some discussion is needed. Lithopsian ( talk) 18:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Also bundling the following pages:

Lithopsian ( talk) 18:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Procedural keep. I object to the mass bundling of articles in this way. It is true that the en.wiki articles lack sources but at least in some cases there is a corresponding pt.wiki article with plenty of sources. It’s lazy editing to create en.wiki articles without sourcing, but where pt.wiki shows that there are sources, the articles meet our notability requirements. If there are articles in this list for bridges that are genuinely not notable then by all means let’s delete them, but not take them all as a job lot. Mccapra ( talk) 19:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Procedural keep I also object to the mass bundling, especially since I doubt that every single one of these have been checked for sources. I took one of these articles, Ponte de Segura, and made a little bit of research. I found a number of academic sources that discuss the bridge in depth, which isn't surprising since this is a Roman bridge from around centuries I/II. I added them to the article and I'll try to expand it a bit in the coming days. I don't know if all the bridges meet WP:GNG (probably not), but a mass bundling like this prevents people from trying to do the same work I did for Ponte de Segura. RetiredDuke ( talk) 23:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC) Edit to add: I've also added sources to Ponte Ferroviária do Pocinho, it's a centenary road-rail bridge that is discussed in the context of the railroad network in Portugal. RetiredDuke ( talk) 14:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Procedural redirect All articles written with automated script without sources or assertion of notability, I oppose the mass bunding of stub creation in this way. Existence of an article in another language does not mean that it automatically passes notability on en.wiki. If there are articles in this list for bridges that are genuinely notable then by all means an actual human can write them, but not have them all as a job lot. Semi-automated creation did not have the approval of BFRA as required from here. Reywas92^Talk 00:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC) reply

I’m not arguing that the existence of an article on another wiki is a definer of notability on en.wiki. I’m saying that where an article on another wiki plainly has multiple independent reliable sources, as some of these do, they should not be swept up in a mass deletion. Unfortunately a number of en.wiki editors translate articles from other wikis and just leave them as unsourced stubs, expecting someone else to do the work of adding or finding references. I think this is very bad behaviour, but it doesn’t have a bearing on the notability of the topic. Mccapra ( talk) 02:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Of the 26 articles, 10 do not have connected pt articles; of the remaining 16, only 6 have sources, whose quality I did not assess. While these may be notable, your point is why this should be a procedural redirect that can be created as an actual article at any time, similar to WP:SOFTDELETE, since there's nothing even to sweep up besides a "Name is a bridge in place". These have all been a single line with no details or claim of notability for over a decade now, and pt sources are still accessible for those interested in these 6 (Pocinho, Velha do Vouga, Vilela, Vilar de Mouros, Varziela, Lagoncinha) rather than having them sit there without content or sources until 2030. Else keep just these and delete/redirect the rest. Reywas92^Talk 05:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC) reply

I agree with a lot of what you say, but I think that it is non-sensical to make a mass AfD for 26 articles with varying degrees of notability and expect to just come out of it with a blanket decision for the lot of them. I agree that they should not exist without sources for eternity, but the nominator should make smaller bundles of like 3/4 articles so that people can at least look at them properly and engage if they want to. Otherwise what even are we discussing if most people won't even open all of the articles. RetiredDuke ( talk) 08:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Procedural Keep - A nonsensical amount of AfDs with varying degrees of ability to ascertain notability. For example the 2nd Century Roman built Ponte de Segura is most certainly notable. Oakshade ( talk) 05:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep The word Ponte means bridge, you will find English sources if you use Bridge after the name of the bridge. Out of these articles there are five including Ponte de Segura that can pass GNG, but you have bundeled them all togather, which forces us to either vote delete on all or keep on all. If you make an AFD for each sepreately, it will be easier to vote. MistyGraceWhite ( talk) 09:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Procedural keep per apples and oranges. This nomination is a bit of a WP:TRAINWRECK per some disparate articles selected. Also, the high number of nominations makes the performance of individual source searches for each separate article to determine notability or lack thereof very time-consuming. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep, includes bridges being notable enough for having a page. SportsOlympic ( talk) 09:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep, another bundle with a ridiculous number of articles to consider, also, "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article.", and as editors above appear to have quite easily found sources for some of them, a lack of WP:BEFORE? Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC) reply
Procedural Keep The fact that Ponte Ferroviária do Pocinho seems to be clearly notable means this completely falls over. Some of these probably are able to be deleted, and they may even be able to be bundled, but that would require clarity in what sort of WP:BEFORE search has been done. SportingFlyer T· C 01:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Upon closer inspection, the vast majority of these are probably notable and can be developed into proper articles. SportingFlyer T· C 01:48, 10 May 2020 (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.

Ponte Velha de Padastros

Ponte Velha de Padastros

Videos

Websites

Encyclopedia

Facebook