Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Mount Street 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The result was nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 09:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mount Street Bridge[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I withdraw my nomination This tiny stub of the battle is already pretty well described in the Easter Rising main article and adds nothing further of significance. Whatever is missing, with its citations, could well be merged into the main article. ww2censor (talk) 10:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so lets see how far this can be improved since the three sentence stub. ww2censor (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Sufficient prose has now been added to this article. ww2censor (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 10:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The conflict was the event when both the British Army and the Irish rebels lost most forces during the Easter Uprising; it has encyclopedic signficance and meets WP:GNG. I would have to argue that the content can be further expanded with details unnecessary for the main uprsing article. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect while the battle is notable there really isn't enough detail to justify a standalone page when it is covered completely and in context on Easter Rising. Mztourist (talk) 10:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has been expanded since its nomination so it would not be only a content fork from the Easter Uprising article. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The battle is the subject of an entire book and often makes up an entire chapter in other histories of the Easter Rising (e.g., this one). One need not be a friend of Irish nationalism (and I am not one) to see that this battle was clearly more significant that a simple skirmish and that there is plentiful material available to expand it. Moreover the article Easter Rising is already 60kb of "readable prose" and thus already too long per WP:TOOLONG to merge this into. FOARP (talk) 10:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FOARP. Mccapra (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Have we lost our collective minds? This shouldn't even be a question. Are we really arguing WP:NOEFFORT about a page on a vicious conflict in Dublin where over 26 British soldiers were killed and some 134 wounded in what is recognised as a key battle in the 1916 rising? It's sourced to death, literally. It's a thing, literally. It's notable, demonstrably - to the point where I don't even need to break sweat to present sources, you just Google the damn thing. It's extensively, lovingly, memorially and brilliantly documented. WP:BEFORE, much? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a significant moment in the history of Irish independence. It needs expansion, not merge / redirect - Alison ^talk 17:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 01:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a well known battle and was the worst in terms of fatalities in the Easter Rising. Sarah777 (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect for preference to Easter_Rising#Tuesday_and_Wednesday, but I suspect I am in a minority. This appears to be an engagement on the Wednesday, which is not mentioned in that article. If kept, work is needed to ensure that this article is properly integrated with the main Easter Rising one, with this one linked as a main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of historical significance. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2022 (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.