Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hungerford Marsh 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 procedural close. I have relisted three of these large batch of articles, so those three can be reviewed in detail. However, the remainder will be closed as procedural. This is because it is unfair to burden a small group of editors (on what is somewhat of a niche topic) with having to evaluate so many discussions at once. This number is obviously relative to the number of active/interested participants in a subject area (for example, a popular sport can likely handle more than 3), but to ensure fair and accurate participation and consensus, a smaller number is required for this topic area. I encourage anyone who wants to nominate these in the future, firstly explores the potential to merge and redirect (which can be done on the article talk page or a centralised location), or if they do wish to pursue a deletion discussion, does them in smaller batches. Thanks in advance. Regards, Daniel (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hungerford Marsh Lock[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(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) 19:40, 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) 21:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:28, 25 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) 00:01, 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.