Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oldest dams

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. After the suggestion to move it, there was support for that and it will make things consistent in any case. -Splash 00:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oldest dams

This article is pointless, as the information exists at Cauvery and at Kallanai. Tom Radulovich 16:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• keep has potential to grow, and definately needs work, but not a candidate for deletion. At worst you could redirect it to a list of dams by age, or develop it into an interesting article on old dams. Trollderella 16:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Note, the information was added by Balasubramanian J, an 'Archival specialist in Indian Heritage informations'. Most of the information is present in other articles, so it may be a good idea to edit this and add more information on other old dams. Trollderella 16:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep definitly has room, and reason, to grow HoratioVitero 17:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that every one of this user's edits, save for one minor edit to Bible, is to VfD. Zoe 21:33, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• keep needs work, but an interesting subject. Roodog2k 19:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: don't lose the info; I'm not sure whether I recommend merging with Dam or History of Civil Engineering or keeping as a separate article, with consideration for a name that makes it easy to find for someone with an interest. That sounds like keep but keep and merge are not really the same vote but two alternatives. Still thinking -- WCFrancis 21:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Decided Keep. --WCFrancis 01:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Dam makes the most sense to me. Fernando Rizo T/C 22:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • If the consensus does indeed end up being keep, let me recommend a page move to a title like World's oldest dams, in keeping with precedent set by World's tallest structures and World's longest tunnels. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, too much information to merge comfortably, with potential for much more. Kappa 22:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rename per Fernando Rizo. Capitalistroadster 00:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article at present is rather pointless, but there's certainly potential here. Also, agree with the proposed name change to 'World's oldest dams'.Wandering oojah 00:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• I support the renaming as suggested above. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:49, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with dam, The information is definitely encyclopedic, but I think it would be better to have such info in the main dam article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:19, 26 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.