Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drainage channel

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 and possibly expand with valid sources. (Tagged as such) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drainage channel[edit]

A dicdef that's already been transwikied to wiktionary. I see no encyclopedic content or notability from which to create an article. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 15:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wiktionary is the right place for this, and it's already there. JohnCD (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Drainage is a prerequisite for agriculture in vast areas of the globe e.g. the Fenlands in the UK. There's an article to be written here covering design of channels to achieve desired flow rates &c. This rather poor stub is a placeholder for that article. Failing a keep, I'd suggest a redirect into one of the better general drainage articles. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Call your cable TV provider to receive The Drainage Channel. Mandsford (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a dictionary. Article has already been transwikied. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is already more than a dictionary definition - the materials from which drainage channels are made is encyclopedic information, not part of the definition of the term. And, as Nunquam Dormio says, there is plenty more that could be written about the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article is more than a dictionary defition already, as stubby -- and lordy is it stubby -- as it is. You can do whole courses in civil engineering on drainage channels, which means there is the clear possibility of expanding into an encyclopedic discussion of the subject. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
suggest Redirect to ditch which seems to cover the same territory in fewer syllables. Mangoe (talk) 04:40, 1 March 2008 (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.