Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoogholtje bridge


 * 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. Missvain (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Hoogholtje bridge

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not meet WP:GNG. Not even sure if the term is legit. It just seems strange that only small province would even use the term. Rusf10 (talk) 01:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 01:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 01:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. The claims that this type of bridge does not pass the WP:GNG or is illegit cannot be taken seriously. Nominator has a question about these bridges. That's awesome! AfD is the WP:WRONGFORUM. gidonb (talk) 02:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am serious and WP:ONUS is not on me. If the article should be kept, provide sources that demonstrate its notability. As of right now there are zero sources. If I go to Google and search for the term, nothing comes up.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There are literally hundreds of sources, accessible for example through Google, Google Books, Delpher, the De krant van toen and other databases. Nominator's job is to do an adequate WP:BEFORE and per WP:NEXIST all that matters is that the sources are out there. A hoogholtje is essentially the same as a kwakel or kwakelbrug, in the old Dutch spelling a quakel. I would go for Kwakel bridge as not in a Lower Saxonian dialect but in the language that most readers of English, who are big on travel to the Amsterdam region, will encounter this bridge. I even considered quakel that might have pronunciation advantages but it isn't commonly used in English. What happened to asking a question on a talk page? All people seem to do these days is starting AfDs with any question or requests they might have! gidonb (talk) 10:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, WP:ONUS is not on me. This is a poor quality article that has been unsourced for 15 years! I actually did WP:BEFORE, Google and Google books bring up nothing (obviously you never looked at either). Your declaration of Sources Exist is not helpful when you refuse to actually provide these sources that you claim to exist.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * False! This is a common bridge in the Netherlands with huge historical and cultural significance and probably well over thousand sources on the web, as detailed before. The three relevant policies are: WP:BEFORE that was badly done. For example, a user below found three sources while using only Google (Delpher has hundreds of sources by each name) and speaks no Dutch. Furthermore, the Dutch article says that hoogholtje is the same as kwakel and is linked to that article. The kwakel article is referenced and kwakel has, once again, tons of sources. Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article, explicitly saying "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article." Finally, Wikipedia has no deadline, which you seem to imply. Based on your other AfDs, I assume that you will keep arguing, not withdraw, and this nomination, too, will fail. Once you will do an adequate WP:BEFORE, ask questions on talk pages, be open to knowledge that others, including sources and databases, have to share, and argue less, you will serve WP better or at the very least will finally get your AfD success rates up. gidonb (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I already proved to you that I did a BEFORE search, problem is WP:ONUS is not on me. There is no way for me to know what an alternate (and perhaps more popular) name would be for this bridge when it doesn't appear in the article. Doing a BEFORE search does not mean spending hours trying to research a topic. And yes, wikipedia does have a deadline for sourcing, it is when the article is created. Articles without sources should not exist. And why don't you strike your false WP:PERSONALATTACK about my AfD success rate. Its actually 68%.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I searched in several different places. The WP:BEFORE on this wasn't an easy one. SportingFlyer  T · C  19:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I can imagine that it was difficult to find "hoogholtje bridge", especially because the bridge is in fact just name "hoogholtje". The Banner  talk 21:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No case for deletion was ever made or exists. The idea that these bridges are a hoax is just weird. Really weird. My suggestion was constructive: invest more in nominations, go for quality where the facts speak for themselves rather than quantity where one WP:BLUDGEONES with everyone, and the results will be so much better for all parties involved, including oneself, and above all for Wikpedia! gidonb (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * delete It's pretty obvious what the problem is with this, and I'm getting more than a little irritated at the trend towards trying to dismiss AfDs without looking at the article on terminological grounds. Book hit searching for this produces nothing. Nothing. Web searches don't do enough better. Both the Dutch and Low Saxon WP articles are uncited, so they are no help here for refs. I have to say that a type of bridge for which there are no book hits at all isn't plausibly notable. It makes me doubt it is even a thing at all. Mangoe (talk) 03:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. jp×g 04:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment This seems to be a real thing from a books search. Might be hard to find enough though to write an article about. A merge seems appropriate, but not sure where to. Jumpytoo Talk 04:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep It's clearly a real thing, both the speedy keep and the delete !votes are lacking so far. However, this, this, and this are the only sources I can find so far which would suggest WP:GNG coverage of the term; the second and third sources is lacking, but it's very possible I'm missing valid Dutch sources because of a language barrier. There's an op-ed which I can't access which may discuss the bridges, but the fact it shares a name with a number of bed and breakfasts and schools doesn't help the source search. For now, a weak keep on the assumption there's more Dutch language sources out there. SportingFlyer  T · C  15:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Cleary a type of bridge, satisfactorily ref'd (Absurd to suggest not legit or real considering EN wikipedia commons has Category:Hoogholtjes). Possibly re-name to Kwakel bridge to cover broader area. (see:https://www.debinnenvaart.nl/binnenvaarttaal/index.php?relatie=bruggen) Djflem (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, its not absurd, there were absolutely no references when I nominated this. Also, please cite the guideline that says if a topic has a wikipedia commons category than it must be notable (I haven't seen it). --Rusf10 (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Woefully inadequate BEFORE. Not Wikipedia commons, but common sense, also considering https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoogholtje, https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwakel, https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heechhout, which speaks to the "strange that only small province would even use the term". Note the difference between 'legit' and 'notable'. Djflem (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is typical of you. All you do is scream "BEFORE! BEFORE! BEFORE!" The article in its previous state, appeared to be a possible WP:HOAX. I've already explained above how my before search came up with nothing. Notice how the Dutch wikipedia article is is also unsourced, so no help there. The existence of an article in another language does not equal notability. That project may have different standards and without reliable secondary sources, it simply carries no weight.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And who else is the network of culprits in the conspiracy to write & publish the Hoogholtje bridge article, the other than the creators & contributors of the Dutch articles, the photographers and contributors to Wikimedia Commons, and the Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed (the Dutch equivilant to the National Registers of Historic Places? If, as you stated, you are "not even sure if the term is legit" or "it just seems strange that only small province would even use the term" to you, do better BEFORE nominating.Djflem (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * further comment Perhaps it is frustrating but while there is at least some sourcing for kwakel (or kwakelbrug), there still is none for the name on this page. And frankly, at this point kwakel could just as well be created as a redirect to a short section in footbridge, and this one still deleted. I do see that the NL article is actually (if not well) sourced, but I also see that the two commons categories are completely disjoint; moreover, the picture in this article is in neither. Finally, I would like to observe that it is lame to criticize someone in the English WP for not searching on a name that is utterly different from that in the article. Mangoe (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As I'm sure you know, notability is different from the state of sourcing in the article - I'd fix it up but have no confidence in doing it right due to the language barrier. But this wasn't an easy/straightforward search, and as I've said before I really don't agree with those who say the BEFORE was inadequate. SportingFlyer  T · C  19:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 07:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep The nomination smell like a severe geographical bias, with a negative opinion about the Netherlands and its provinces. With that, the nomination not by far neutral. Back to the issue: this type of bridge is used in multiple provinces in the Netherlands: Groningen, Friesland, North Holland (including Amsterdam) and South Holland (including Rotterdam and The Hague) and Overijssel (Giethoorn). The article is well sourced. The Banner  talk 21:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The nomination smell like a severe geographical bias, with a negative opinion about the Netherlands and its provinces. With that, the nomination not by far neutral. Wow, nobody can fool you. I didn't think anyone else would pick up on it, but yes I nominated this solely because I hate the Netherlands. What a stupid statement!--Rusf10 (talk) 04:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank for confirming your bias. But could you please discuss the content without personal attacks? The Banner  talk 09:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep this nomination originally seems to be prompted by a lack of understanding of the Dutch language and Dutch history/culture. In The Netherlands there are several languages and dialects. Therefor local cultural or landscape oriented aspects can have a different name, depending on the region. For example: the landscape element Kwelder. Where I live people will probably know what I'm talking about when I say "Kwelder". I've I would travel south for about half an hour, people would probably have no idea what I'm talking about because kwelders are called schorren there. Another example, if I would travel as less as 5 kilometres, just to visit my family, people will notice instantly that I'm not from around there. So much can language differ in the Netherlands. Thus it doesn't seem strange to me that this term is only used in Groningen, a province in which the Low Saxon also is an official language. The language the term Hoogholtje originates from. A language not used in any of the other provinces.


 * Regarding the sources. There is no reason that independent and reliable sources cannot be found. However, you'll have to do a literature search in Dutch and probably visit a one of the major libraries in the Netherlands. The history of Groningen is well researched. Just because a Google search didn’t provide any useful results, it doesn’t mean that no sources can be found. Unfortunately COVID makes it hard for me to visit the Royal Library, but I surely hope that difficulties visiting libraries due to a pandemic isn’t a reason to dismiss an article.


 * Should pages about similar bridges be merged? No, architecture, local cultural significance or origin may differ significantly. Natuur12 (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It isn't good enough to say "no reason that [...] sources cannot be found"; they need to be found, and nobody has found any as has looked, as far as has been said here.


 * As far as the language variants are concerned: first, I am aware of the issue, but second, this being the English WP, we need what they are called in English. So far nobody has given a source which uses the current name, and the other name at least has some sources, but when all is said and done, it takes no more than one sentence (maybe two) and a picture to describe these things, which is why I'm thinking a section in footbridge is more appropriate, Mangoe (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Now, we're getting somewhere. At least understand why it was so hard to find sources for this. There are multiple names for the same bridge and now I understand why. But that's not my fault. If the article was written properly in the first place, the alternate names would have been there. They were nowhere to be found. What I came across was a poorly written unsourced article that has been that way for about 15 years. It did not provide the necessary information that I would need to research the topic without being a Dutch language expert. I know its fun to WP:BlameTheNominator (somebody should write a essay about that), but this is the fault of the person who created this article and the rest of you who haven't cared about the article for the past 15 years, but now have this fake outrage because someone dared to nominate a really poor-quality article for deletion.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You can not expect Dutch people to provide sources in English, just because you guys can not handle that. But is is your right to withdraw the nomination now it is an okay article. The Banner  talk 09:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I can expect them to provide sources though. There were no sources in any language.WP:V is a policy, can you handle that?--Rusf10 (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You really failed to see the 10 sources in the article? The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 15:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * But beside that, see here:
 * Het Noorden in woord en beeld, jrg 4, 1928-1929, no 1, 01-01-1928, 1928
 * Het Noorden in woord en beeld, jrg 1, 1925-1926, no 41, 08-01-1926, 1926
 * Over de bodem van de Dollard, 2011
 * Nieuwsblad van het Noorden, 1929
 * Trouw, 1994
 * There is much more on https://www.delpher.nl/ that can give evidence of the existence of this type of bridge. All can be found under the simple search string "Hoogholtje" (and not the incorrect name "Hoogholtje bridge"). The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 16:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. This is what the article looked like when I nominated it. There were no sources.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And how hard is it for you to understand that there are NOW plenty sources. It is not illegal for a subject to have sources in another language. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 09:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

First, a small correction. Groningen isn't the only province where they speak Low Saxon, they speak a unique variety named Gronings.

The only problem with the original article is the lack of citations. It’s factual correct. Length isn’t a criteria for quality. Regardless, citations are provided and the article contains some more info. The term Hoogholtje is still used. (example).

Can more reliable sources be found? Yes. Example 1, example 2, example 3. Still, for A-grade sources I'll have to visit the Royal Library, but COVID complicates things. Natuur12 (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.