Talk:Zandberg, North Brabant

A really futile stub
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)


 * Did you see the discussion on your user page – specifically, the bit where I linked you to the relevant deletion procedures? If not, I'll link them here again:


 * Proposed deletion
 * Articles for deletion


 * Enjoy the read. .:Pvt S:. 00:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you once again. A tag like is what I had in mind. Ad43 (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have declined the request for speedy deletion (which I assume is for the article and not this talk page) because a) the article does not met the criterion for (it is not incoherent, gibberish nor does it have no meaningful content); and b) because the deletion of articles about geographical places are usually controversial and so are best resolved by discussion. Please follow the procedure at Articles for deletion.  --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:22, 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)


 * Perhaps you should make this part of your statement when you propose or nominate it for deletion? .:Pvt S:. 13:27, 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)


 * If you think this is an uncontroversial deletion, then WP:PROD (proposed deletion) is the way to go. This consists of adding the template  reason for deletion  to the top of the article (replacing "reason for deletion" with your own rationale).  If no one contests the Prod by removing it, it will be deleted after 5 days.  .:Pvt S:. 18:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My experience is that requests for deletion of articles about places are almost always controversial hence my advice to take it to Articles for deletion. Ad43: would you like me to set up a request at WP:AFD for you? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:08, 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)


 * And thank you for wasting our time. .:Pvt S:. 20:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I only did my duty. Ad43 (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you blanked a page, twice, then requested an inappropriate speedy deletion, and in the face of being told how you might properly seek deletion (several times), you abandoned all responsibilty.  .:Pvt S:. 20:37, 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)


 * What is it they say? Don't feed the troll.  B'bye.  .:Pvt S:. 20:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh oh. A bad loser and bad manners too. Ad43 (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Stop please, everybody. Let's leave things there and work on improving the encyclopedia elsewhere. I'll look further at this article. Thanks. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Do so. In the meantime, I'll keep an eye on his blanking activities.  .:Pvt S:. 22:18, 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)