Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erie Canal Locks

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 of the debate was merge and redirect. — FireFox usertalk 20:55, 03 June '06

Erie Canal Locks[edit]

Is the canal lock in it self really notable enough to have an article? I think not, so delete as Wikipedia isn't, and should not be a source for all information! Also listed the following related articles:

Bjelleklang - talk 00:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge The canal is quite well known. The locks, first of all, should be discussed for deletion/merging together... OK, so it's done; I renamed the nomination to Erie Canal Locks to avoid confusion. I suggest a merge of these articles, as they will become useful this way. CP/M 00:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Kusma. Merge them all into a list. Kalani

[talk] 00:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge em. -- cds(talk) 00:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good grief ... Merge ... but ... wow ... a lot of work went into this. BigDT 00:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge → Wombdpsw - @ ← 02:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per above WCX 02:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I like the merge idea too! 05:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as a matter of fact, I'm working on it with the creator of the newer articles right now. --Chaser (T) 07:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - The other people make a good argument for the merge. 05:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nertz (talk • contribs)
  • Merge - Chaser and I are updating a table of the locks. Our open question is what to do with the pages where other content was added (e.g. Locks 2 - 11). I've requested speedy deletion for locks 12 - 35. I also suggest the templates Template:Erie Canal Lock and Template:Erie Canal Locks be eliminated. CPAScott
  • Keep all. I got an old mule and her name is Sal. The few I've looked at have been fairly nice, and illustrated: merging them all into one page may make it unwieldy. Call it a logical fallacy if you must, but we do have many separate articles on railway stations in Scotland, and locks on the Erie Canal are at least as notable as they. Smerdis of Tlön 14:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Smerdis of Tlön. Besides, if we are keeping culturally insignificant buildings like elementary schools, I think we've set the bar low enough that a couple of doors holding back water deserve their own article.--Isotope23 16:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as separate articles. Some of the locks may have additional cultural or historical features. For example, the overspill from lock 32 has been turned into a whitewater kayacking practice course. Some of the locks are also State or local parks, with bike paths and other facilities. It is unreasonable to expect every article to be perfect in less than 24 hours. Thatcher131 16:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While some of these have nothing but the template box, several of these articles are rather interesting. These are individually substantial structures which seem notable enough for me. I wouldn't be against getting rid of the ones that are basically empty until such time that good articles can be created. But so far as a nomination for all of them goes, I say they should be kept. ScottW 17:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Xyrael T 18:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Having this many short articles makes things difficult for readers and editors alike. Combining them would create an article of the right length – perhaps slightly picture-heavy, but not unpleasantly so.
    The arguments of Smerdis of Tlön and Isotope23, that our inability to keep other parts of the encyclopedia encyclopedic somehow means we must abandon any effort to do so and simply let the whole thing slump into one unreadable, unmaintainable mess, strikes me as very odd. Schools are a lost battle due to the sheer number of children who can't understand how a building they spend half their life in can be insignificant, but it simply does not follow that we should have several dozen poor articles on these locks rather than one brilliant article. — Haeleth Talk 19:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment CPAScott and I are currently working on a new table at User:CPAScott/Erie locks, with relevant discussion at his talk page. I'd appreciate input at this AfD or elsewhere about whether we should merge textual info and photographs for locks 2-13 or just leave the subarticles. A deletion consensus doesn't seem to be forming. --Chaser (T) 23:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per all of the above. --Northmeister 01:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge points are already listed above Deleteme42 02:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • MERGE COMPLETED May I now again suggest that all lock pages I created be deleted in speedy order? CPAScott 04:01, 3 June 2006
Doesn't look merged to me? -- cds(talk) 20:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(What page?) -- cds(talk) 20:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I've misunderstood exactly what merged means. All of the data is now included at Erie Canal#Locks. If I've taken all the content from the pages under discussion and move them to this spot, that's a merge, yes? Sorry, still learning Wikipedia speak. Hey -- while I'm at it, how do you guys sign these so the date and time stamps automatically? Thanks ... CPAScott 16:45, 3 June 2006


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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Erie_Canal_Locks&oldid=1146831449"