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. Fram (talk) 10:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete nothing to indicate that this castle is moatable or notable. No refs. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It was apparently destroyed in the early 1700s, see here. I don't know how that affects the notablility. Drawn Some (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That link would appear to affect the verifiability of the topic. But it's surely better to keep relisting until consensus is reached instead of improving the article. Mokumoki (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mokumoki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. That said, it's a castle, it must have quite the history behind it, even if only through its occupants. --BlueSquadronRaven 21:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Major architectural structures like castles are always notable, and as military bases of significance as well. That it was destroyed does not influence the notability, as long as reliable sources exist. DGG (talk) 04:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or delete If someone gives it some meat and turns it into an article, I'd be happy to see it kept. If not, it completely lacks encyclopedicness. Articles are more than a 6-word substub. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: With no prejudice to re-create a proper article, as Mgm notes. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless sourcing improves. --Chiliad22 (talk) 01:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as single-line substub, without prejudice against creating a proper article. Stifle (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. The only source is [1], but that cites a Belarus encyclopedia. I was going to suggest mentioning the destruction of the castle in Great Northern War, but the site doesn't say when during this 20 year war it was razed. I wondered if there was a misspelling, and indeed Liahovichi turns up this[2], but I'm not sure the extra info is enough to construct an article. Here's what we know in total:

Liahavichy Castle was a fortified Belarus castle, one of the most significant in Belarus in the 17th century. It was built at the end of the 16th century by the hetman of Liahovichi, Yan Eromin of the Hadkevich family, on a hill in the Belarus town of the same name. It stood on the bank of the Vedz'ma river, surrounded by a moat adjustable by a dam. In the centre stood a two-storey palace. Eromin's son, Yan Korol, the hetman of Great Lithuanian Principality, reconstructed and fortified the castle. The castle and surrounding settlement was destroyed during the Great Northern War of 1700-1721. Is this enough for an article? Fences and windows (talk) 23:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC) I got some more from another sources quoting "Arhitektura Belarusi. Encyklapedychny davednik" ("Architecture of Belarus. Encyclopedia") - ed.: A.A. Voinau and others, Minsk, Publishing house 2)"Belaruskaia Encyklapedyia" by Piatrus' Brouka, 1993.[3]. There was yet another spelling, Lyakhovichi. Here's a coat of arms:[4] Fences and windows (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rescued. I've finished with my rescue of the article. I hope it's OK now. A problem with sourcing was the bazillion spellings. Fences and windows (talk) 00:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG and sources added. It would be nice if they were in-line, but there you are. Hobit (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True. Maybe someone can pick up the baton! Fences and windows (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per F&W's good work in finding the alternative spellings. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Kudos to Fences and windows for finding and adding sources. Edward321 (talk) 14:12, 6 May 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.