Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ponte della Paglia


 * 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) 01:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Ponte della Paglia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is unreferenced and doesn't make any claim of any significance. Compassionate727 (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment as with the other Venetian bridges put up for deletion, while the articles are stubs that would need to be expanded, the bridges themselves are likely notable. They are mentioned in numerous travel guides, architectural guides, history guides, etc., and while I haven't confirmed the extensiveness of the coverage, it seems reasonable to expect that you'll find it if you look. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:45, 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) 18:54, 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) 18:54, 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) 18:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - It took a few seconds to find an incredible amount of secondary reliable sources spanning years primarily about this topic, and this is just from an English language internet search.  As it was originally built in 1360,, there most certainly is print coverage in Italian, Venetian and other languages over the centuries.  I advise a withdrawal of this AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a historic structure. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 00:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Obviously, the article needs expansion, but lacking references or not (yet) indicating significance in itself are not valid criteria for deletion. Notability counts. It is discussed in lots of tourist guides, Google turns up with an abundance of hits, a dozen (!) other WPs have articles about it already, and I'm sure more substantial literature (of the genres of history, architecture, or arts) can be turned up as well. It is obvious that the article has potential to become a full-blown article over time. PRODing an article which clearly is not a BLP or vandalism (where immediate action is required) and AfDing it without even researching the subject oneself despite other editors hinting that the articles in the other WPs might exist for a reason is what I consider ignorant and a bad practise which should be avoided. It unnecessarily binds other editors' precious time, which cannot be spent on improving articles any more. Totally counter-productive and annoying.
 * --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:57, 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.