Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bolmen Water Tunnel

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. Please continue merge-related discussions on the appropriate talk page. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bolmen Water Tunnel

Is this tunnel significant enough to warrant an entry? CPAScott 21:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• No. -- Kicking222 21:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, it is 82 km long, and I have only found one longer such tunnel in the world. Correct me if I'm wrong. BIL 21:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  If you say you've found only one longer water tunnel, we believe you. --Lambiam^Talk 22:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  But this page claims that the 5,35 m diameter Orange-Fish tunnel in South Africa, with a length of 82,8 km, is the longest continuous enclosed aqueduct in the Southern hemisphere and the second-longest water supply tunnel in the world (presumably after the Päijänne Water Tunnel). That would make the Bolmen tunnel presently the third. An 85.3 km tunnel is said here to be under construction in Liaoning Province. --Lambiam^Talk 22:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Bolmen and redirect (two little stubs together...aahhh). Yomangani 23:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. If more is added to the article. Surely the third longest water tunnel is notable and something more can be said about it. If not, then maybe it is not all that notable. I marked it as a stub, maybe someone will be able to add a few more facts that address the article's current weaknesses. Vegaswikian 18:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment I had a fairly good look around before suggesting the merge and I couldn't find anything to add. Yomangani 19:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. There are loads of stubs on Wikipedia that are as short or refer to a more minor piece of infrastrucure than this one. This one just needs more on it. Trnj2000 17:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep. This is a piece of major public infrastructure, and hence far more important than 99.99% of the sci-fi/fantasy/gamer content that passes for articles on Wikipedia. --Centauri 05:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep or merge to Bolmen. No strong preference. -AED 06:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - major piece of engineering. New York City is building a longer one, but it won't be done until 2020 or so. --Brianyoumans 06:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Bolmen. Doesn't need its own entry. Eusebeus 12:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Bolmen digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 14:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge to Bolmen Martinp23 14:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge tp Bolmen -- Whpq 20:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Bolmen NCurse _work 21:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Boldly merge to Bolmen. If either article grows to overcrowdedness, we can split them again. :) Dlohcierekim 07:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

OOPS forgot to say a redirect would be in order. :) Dlohcierekim 07:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep it is interesting enough, having in mind that more than 180 A-roads and 19 road junctions in the UK have articles. Libb2 19:27, 17 August 2006 (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.