Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lock 3
- 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 redirect to Welland Canal since it is a part of it. (non-admin closure) – 333-blue at 05:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Lock 3 (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)
Similar rationale Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burleigh Hill, St. Catharines. Lock 3 isn't really a distinct community, it's part of the Welland Canal. As in, a water passage for boats to skip Niagara Falls, not really a place people live. As far as I can tell, the only sources (at least online) that label it as a distinct community are Wikipedia mirrors. I don't think this meets the requirements for notability in WP:GEOLAND/WP:GNG. Clovermoss (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Honestly I'm just going to boldly redirect this to Welland Canal. If anyone has a problem with that, revert me and restart the discussion.- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment – Even if it might not meet WP:GEOLAND as a notable community because it isn't a community, it's possible it would pass WP:GNG itself as a lock/place that visit (so far I haven't found any sources that focus on it specifically except in its relationship to other locks/the museum, but it's possible I'm just not looking in the right place and there's more substantial coverage). Which would be another good reason to withdraw, honestly. I think my bold redirect, at least for now, is fine. Someone could always create an article later if there's sources to do so. But honestly I'm worried I might've been a bit too bold. I'd appreciate input from other editors. Clovermoss (talk) 01:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Close discussion As this is now a redirect to a well known article, the discussion is moot. Nfitz (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Nfitz: I'm not sure how or if I'm supposed to close it since I started the AfD? Couldn't someone theoretically disagree with me? I did withdraw but I don't think that actually means I closed it. I've never actually closed anything before. I'm the person who redirected because it seemed like the obvious choice after the fact. Clovermoss (talk) 08:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- I try and stay away from opening or closing AFDs - I think you can just close this, etc. Or just wait out the 7 days. 18:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Nfitz: So this seems to imply that it is possible for me to close a discussion, but that I shouldn't because I created the AfD? Although there's a part of me that wonders if I should ignore that advice because I'm pretty sure it's intended as a "don't !supervote to get your way in a deletion discussion" because typically nominating an article for deletion means that you think that the article should be deleted. Although that would only really work if you were an admin because it's not really possible to close things as delete if you can't delete things? So it really could just be a don't do this ever thing. Technically a redirect means that it's kept? So therotically I could close this as keep. I have seen some precedent for someone closing keep as withdrawing their nom though, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Younge-Ullman – an article I should really get around to improving. But I don't participate enough in AfDs to know if this is standard or unusual. Or if norms surrounding this have changed since 2019. Clovermoss (talk) 18:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Being Wikipedia, there are always multiple conflicting "rules" and guidelines making it pretty much impossible to do anything, without someone else shouting at you. Nfitz (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Nfitz: So this seems to imply that it is possible for me to close a discussion, but that I shouldn't because I created the AfD? Although there's a part of me that wonders if I should ignore that advice because I'm pretty sure it's intended as a "don't !supervote to get your way in a deletion discussion" because typically nominating an article for deletion means that you think that the article should be deleted. Although that would only really work if you were an admin because it's not really possible to close things as delete if you can't delete things? So it really could just be a don't do this ever thing. Technically a redirect means that it's kept? So therotically I could close this as keep. I have seen some precedent for someone closing keep as withdrawing their nom though, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Younge-Ullman – an article I should really get around to improving. But I don't participate enough in AfDs to know if this is standard or unusual. Or if norms surrounding this have changed since 2019. Clovermoss (talk) 18:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- I try and stay away from opening or closing AFDs - I think you can just close this, etc. Or just wait out the 7 days. 18:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Nfitz: I'm not sure how or if I'm supposed to close it since I started the AfD? Couldn't someone theoretically disagree with me? I did withdraw but I don't think that actually means I closed it. I've never actually closed anything before. I'm the person who redirected because it seemed like the obvious choice after the fact. Clovermoss (talk) 08:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- 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.