Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/400kV Forth Crossing

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. This closure should not be interpreted as precluding a later merge if a consensus can be reached. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

400kV Forth Crossing[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:N. Article makes no attempt to establish any notability, searching for "Forth Crossing" brings up bridge-related things almost solely, and putting any of the numbers before the crossing name, which is currently disputed (132kV, 380kV, 400kV) gives me no reliable sources; just a bunch of Wiki-style things and unreliable stuff. The claim in the article that this is the "tallest electricity tower in Scotland" does not appear to be verifiable, and even if it is verifiable - is that really a notable thing, unless it has actually received substantial coverage in that regard? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep Is there any serious question that this major crossing in the National Grid exists? If we recognise that much, it's a bit of a failure by WP to start claiming that it's not notable. The Emporis source confirms that it's there, also that it's 400kV. That's just by looking at the obvious place where I'd expect it to be listed, not by even trying to search for sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are those things generally notable by Wikipedia standards though? I'm not seeing a whole lot of articles in Category:Electric power infrastructure in Scotland, and none of these appear to be electricity towers. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There's a big difference between a run of the mill powerline and a major cross-water interconnect. Links like the Thames or Severn Crossings, or the Fawley Tunnel are all there. Note that these major links are all 400kV (or DC), as I'd expect for any link major enough to be listed here. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – into Powerline river crossings in the United Kingdom. I couldn't see the Emporis cites, so I added them. But I'm really wondering if this is notable enough for an article. Compared to say locomotives, there doesn't seem to be a lot of interest around the Internet in pylons. This article and Fawley Tunnel are both pretty stubbish and don't look like they are going anywhere. The 400kV Thames Crossing and Aust Severn Powerline Crossing articles have more content, but I think all four could fit comfortably into Powerline river crossings in the United Kingdom, which itself is pretty stubbish. So, merge and redirect? – Margin1522 (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable to me. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We'd still need redirects and they would need to be categorised for geography. I just don't see any saving to this. Also some interconnects have a substantial history and ongoing local politics - Aust especially. The fact that WP hasn't managed to cover this is no reason to pretend that it shouldn't. It's a strange setup where school articles don't need to be sourced because "All schools are notable", but a major piece of national infrastructure can be vetoed. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – OK, I will grant that the Thames and Severn articles are more substantial. Sources exist. I just added one to the Thames article – a 1938 magazine article on the old Thames crossing. But after looking I can't find any more on this one. In addition to WP:ITEXISTS, we need enough material to write a substantial article. I think copying over everything in this article (text, images, cites) would improve the crossings article, and if we leave this as a redirect with the history intact then it can be revived in the case that someone does find more material. – Margin1522 (talk) 05:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I should add, the geography is a point. We would lose the coordinates. This isn't a strong recommendation. I'm willing to go along if other people want to keep it. – Margin1522 (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Andy Dingley. If the notability guidelines suggest deleting this, as some seem to think, then WP:IAR this one and fix them urgently. Andrewa (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge, tending to keep but merge does no long-term damage, see Andy Dingley and my comments above. Andrewa (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2014 (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.