Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Market Historic District

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 speedy keep. Withdrawn nomination with no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Market Historic District

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe this DAB page is unnecessary since all but one list entry are redlinks. The "see also" is fine, but could at worst be hatnoted on the remaining blue link, and in any case it is unlikely that someone would arrive at this page by accident. I propose the DAB page is deleted and either redirected to the existing blue link (New Market Historic District (New Market, Maryland)) or that link is then moved into its place. Si Trew (talk) 06:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:Keep: Clearly, there's a distinction between other "New Market Historic Districts." It's obvious somebody has been planning to write articles for the other three, or they're leaving room for somebody else to do so. ----DanTD (talk) 12:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dab pages like this are useful. Redlinks encourage article creation. Mjroots (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since all of the redlinked articles are NRHP sites, they "should" all have articles and will, eventually. If this page is deleted now, it will just have to be recreated later and it costs essentially nothing to keep it. It will also save editor time when those articles are created because it makes obvious the fact that the new articles must use a dab form, such as New Market Historic District (New Market, Virginia). . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can well see the points there, except perhaps that really it's not a DAB, but a list (and I am not trying to argue that). There's also New Market (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) which is not an historic district but is on the NRHP (I guess it's a landmark or something else other than a district). This whole DAB is very much a side concern for me, as I am more concerned to merge the DAB articles New Market and Newmarket, and considering those well put arguments, I beg to withdraw my proposal to delete. Si Trew (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for withdrawing your proposal.--Pubdog (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.