Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kréintgeshaff: Difference between revisions

Kréintgeshaff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Could not find any reliable significant coverage or evidence of official government recognition. Sources in the article lack sufficient depth to determine whether this is a farm, locality, hamlet or something else. –dlthewave ☎ 14:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously as the author of this article, I’m inclined to say Keep however I will say I wrote this a long time ago and did a very shoddy job. I can confidently say that if I were to rewrite it, it would pass WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND for example here’s an old census record listing the population of “Kroentgeshoff” as 24 [1], here’s another one from later listing it at 21 [2], you can also find it maps from far longer ago: [3][4] as well as most recent ones: [5][6] and it’s listed in the official database of localities in Luxembourg as well as on road signs in the area. [7]

My point is this place has been continuously inhabited for a long time and not just by one or two families, it’s population has exceeded 20 on 3 different censuses (I remember there being a third one saying its population is around 40 just haven’t got it saved anywhere, I’ll have a look)

As for WP:SIGCOV I’ll have a look, but Kréintgeshaff is much larger than Brichermillen or Éitermillen and yes I remember Eitermillen was nominated for deletion however there was no Conesus, so if that’s right on the brink of passing the GNG than this surely does. For example, I checked the Luxembourgish Library archives and “Kroentgeshof” yielded 160 results[8], surely there’s something to go off of there. N1TH Music (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I’m convinced by N1TH Music’s argument that this is a long-standing place that has geographic and population significance and qualifies under WP:GEOLAND. I will say I originally came into this thinking that the location was not notable whatsoever, but the evidence has swayed me otherwise. Presence in government census records from 138 years ago with continuity of name to the present (I found census records listing the location for 1947 [9], 1966 [10]) is extremely strong presumptive evidence of legal recognition. I also found this 1901 article published in Luxemburgish history journal about the name [11], which gives a lineage to the name back to “ancient times”. It was mentioned here in 1841 [12] with 3 other ‘tenant farms’. The area is described as a farm because of its long economic history – these “pachthoeven” functioned as economic centers in the countryside. One geographical dictionary from 1850 put its population at 70 [13].

Present-day usage of the phrase in prose are not consistent with the idea that it merely a farm; “This improvement in the quality of life continues through Milbech, Moutfort, Oetringen, Medingen, and Kroentgeshof” [14]. The communities it is listed alongside are villages Milbech, Moutfort, Oetrange, Medingen, Luxembourg. This is clear evidence that the Kroentgeshof is a recognized place with a significant community. It’s listed in government documents as a “localitie du domicile electoral” [15].Katzrockso (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it in the electoral list? I’m not seeing it under Contern or Sandweiler. CMD (talk) 12:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]