Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brunsden Lock

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. (non-admin closure) Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I believe this Kennet and Avon Canal Lock article does not meet WP:GNG (WP:NBUILD), as there is no significant source coverage directly addressing the individual Lock available. I believe there is little possible notable information to include, and therefore the article is not worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. The information in this article is also duplicated in List of locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal (Grid Ref/Listed Building/Rise or Fall are all part of this table - hence deletion of this article would not result in any loss of information anyway).

I am also separately nominating the following Locks for deletion as well - however I will nominate them individually, as it is possible some may have more notability or be deemed worthy of keeping for a different reason and may hence deserve their own AfD discussion (as per WP:MULTIAFD).

(list removed - too many template transclusions. 18th March log page is broken) 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I believe some Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal are notable, and therefore I have not included those pages which I believe meet WP:GNG in an AfD. Thank you for your consideration and comments. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close per WP:TRAINWRECK. Narky Blert (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - grade II listed, meets NBUILD Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a listed structure per WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I support keeping the article up, but sending it back to Draft status. Seems to meet the Notability requirement - coverage in multiple secondary sources independent of the subject. But it definitely needs expansion.--Greysonsarch (talk) 14:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly Mxtt.prior accepts that a canal lock can be notable. There are going to be reliable sources for each of them, and in this case someone has created a family of pages on the locks of the K&A canal, which could become quite a useful resource. It isn’t particularly useful for now, except for the photos, but they are still good things to have. I should say add {{refimprove}} tags and give them a few years to develop, review again in due course. Moonraker (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2021 (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.