- 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. ST47 ( talk) 03:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Vārkava Manor ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Cites only one source and does not fufill the Wikipedia Notability guidelines and community consensus. (See: WP:N, WP:CITE) WikiAviator ( talk) 01:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 07:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Comment This source suggests historical relevance. 188.218.87.34 ( talk) 07:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - The nom shouldn't just look at an article and think "I only see one source, therefore it must not be notable." WP:N has the section WP:ARTN that stipulates notability is not based on article condition. WP:AFD and specifically WP:BEFORE states the nom should determine no other sources exist before nominating an article for deletion. In addition to the source already cited by the nom, in only a few seconds I found the Vārkava government published an extensive report on this historic place [1] and more in-depth coverage exists. [2]. Oakshade ( talk) 00:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Clearly an architecturally and historically notable building. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Please do mind what Oakshade explains. -- Doncram ( talk) 21:22, 4 June 2019 (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. ST47 ( talk) 03:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Vārkava Manor ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Cites only one source and does not fufill the Wikipedia Notability guidelines and community consensus. (See: WP:N, WP:CITE) WikiAviator ( talk) 01:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 07:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Comment This source suggests historical relevance. 188.218.87.34 ( talk) 07:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - The nom shouldn't just look at an article and think "I only see one source, therefore it must not be notable." WP:N has the section WP:ARTN that stipulates notability is not based on article condition. WP:AFD and specifically WP:BEFORE states the nom should determine no other sources exist before nominating an article for deletion. In addition to the source already cited by the nom, in only a few seconds I found the Vārkava government published an extensive report on this historic place [1] and more in-depth coverage exists. [2]. Oakshade ( talk) 00:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Clearly an architecturally and historically notable building. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Please do mind what Oakshade explains. -- Doncram ( talk) 21:22, 4 June 2019 (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.