Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Semington Aqueduct

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 on the issue of "keep vs delete", no consensus on the issue of merging. That can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Semington Aqueduct

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

fails WP:GNG. not all aqueducts are notable especially one as unremarkable as this one. this one gets nothing in gnews [1] gbooks reveals WP mirrors. LibStar (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I see that there is a category for navigable aqueducts in England. Is there anything that differentiates other aqueducts that have articles (and presumably have been considered notable to this point) from, say, this one? Kansan (talk) 06:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Semington Aqueduct article. Mjroots (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is only likely to cause confusion - they are two different structures that happen to be located near each other. Merging articles when their subjects have a similar location, while keeping other equally notable subject's articles separate is not very useful.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I partly agree with the nominator that this aqueduct is not notable enough to sustain a separate article. However, I see no reason why the info should be deleted, and it would quite happily sit as a section on the Semington Aqueduct article. Mjroots (talk) 09:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. —Necrothesp (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Generally, named bridges are regarded as being notable, and this is one of a small number of aqueducts in England, and one of only several to have been recently constructed.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Semington Aqueduct as the two topics go naturally together and the naming is not so clear that we can be sure that readers will be wanting the old or the new. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two totally different structures. I think that readers will benefit from the clarity in having two separate articles. As noted above, named bridges are generally notable. Unscintillating (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2011 (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.