Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ponte dei Pugni


 * 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. WP:SNOW keep. (non-admin closure) Antigng (talk) 01:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Ponte dei Pugni

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is unreferenced and doesn't make any claim of any significance. Compassionate727 (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 18:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 18:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 18:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak keep There is an interesting story about this bridge in the Italian and Venetian WPs, some of which could be brought over. Unfortunately, neither has much in terms of references, so I could do a partial translation, but I'm not sure that I could find suitable references. (One quick one here . None of my "serious" history books mention it, but it turns up in tourist guides. Are those considered RS? and provide notability? LaMona (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * While I wouldn't regard tourist guides as any kind of "high-class literature", they certainly are RS (per our definition) and being frequently mentioned in them clearly indicates some kind of notability (by the very meaning of the word). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * For most topics, mentions alone do not equate with notability. I wouldn't expect that mentions in guide books is an exception. As I said, this one has a story behind it (for which I do not have an RS), but some of the other nominated pages here have only mentions. I agree that a substantial article in a guide book would be an RS. However, most places of note that have a substantial article in a guide book will have substantial information in more serious literature, like books and articles on architecture or history. What about those things that only have mentions in guide books? That's where I'm stuck. LaMona (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Appears in multiple reliable sources. Some I just found in English and on the internet.  Nom is nominating a bunch of Venice bridges with obvious zero WP:BEFORE being adhered to. --Oakshade (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. I second this, WP:BEFORE has obviously not being followed before PRODing and AfDing this and the other article stubs on Venice bridges and sites. Subject is notable and article has potential. Give it time to grow, and it will grow. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2015 (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.