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. Nomination withdrawn, consensus to keep reached (no more delete arguments) Tone 22:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cockbridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

the subject is non notable, unverifiable (no sources at all) and has no prospect for expansion. U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 21:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw this nomination... didn't realise it has already been discussed. Sorry. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 22:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous articles are discussed multiple times here. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep-based on its protected cultural heritage status.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can't find any non-WP sources on its alleged Slovenian name. Might this be a joke? I'll change my vote if someone can verify this with some sources.--Oakshade (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC) Changed to Keep per the listed heritage status below. --Oakshade (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not notable. Keep as listed heritage structure, per Eleassar below. Clearly, more can be added with time. The Slovenian name appears to refer to a male chicken, not a part of the human male anatomy, and there is a Cockbridge in Scotland. One of the contributors to the last AfD said that they knew Ljubljana well and it was not notable, from which I infer that it exists. Nevertheless, Wikipedia does not treat every bridge as notable, even if the name when translated into English might amuse some schoolchildren. --AJHingston (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 11:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 11:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, there is basically nothing available about this bridge apart from its location. Can be mentioned in a list of bridges in Ljubljana or similar, but at this point there is no need for a separate article. --Tone 12:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work with finding more content. Now happily changing my opinion to keep (though it is far from a comprehensive article). --Tone 16:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, possibly Merge to Gradaščica or elsewhere. There are several other one-sentence (as of now) articles about notable bridges in Ljubljana. The Cock Bridge in Ljubljana actually exists and is notable, because it was built upon the plans by the architect Jože Plečnik and because it has been protected as cultural heritage.[1][2] (in the textbox) An image is available online[3], and as it is between the Eipper Street and the Gradaška Street, the location is exactly known.[4] Probably, more on this bridge could be found in the National Library of Slovenia or elsewhere. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a sentence about why it is notable and a source. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on its protected cultural heritage status. Doremo (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Gradaščica or maybe keep. We now have notability (sortof), source(s) and a location. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 17:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep National monument, sources exist. Thanks to Eleassar for starting expansion and referencing; hopefully more can be added and surely some local Wikipedian can take a pic. Unfortunately I cannot read the language to help, but there must be at least one more source out there, perhaps in a book on the architect. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2012 (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.