Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Butterley Tunnel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 - considerable work done during AFD makes a redirect or merge impractical. Yomanganitalk 17:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Butterley Tunnel

Article about a three mile long tunnel in England. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 00:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. It can be described in its quasi-parent article, Cromford Canal. -newkai t-c 00:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Cromford Canal, unless expanded. With 111 unique Google hits, it would be hard to write anything of substance about this tunnel that shouldn't go in Cromford Canal. (For a tunnel closed since 1900, sources should probably be sought elsewhere.) Pan Dan 01:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Cromford Canal per Pan Dan. Hello32020 01:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Reason changed to per below. Hello32020 23:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a substantial tunnel on the line of the Cromford Canal. This canal is currently undergoing restoration so it follows that the tunnel, despite the fact that it closed in 1900 will be restored too. Other significant canal tunnels in Britain have their own pages. It therefore follows that if this tunnel should be referred to purely within the Cromford Canal page then other tunnels should share the same fate. There is a great deal to be said about this tunnel not available elsewhere on the net. During its lifetime some of Ripleys coal mines delivered coal directly to underground wharves within the tunnel. Refer to the restoration groups website linked from the Cromford Canal page and you will see that much is known about this tunnel. Why don't you want this information in Wikipedia?Martin Cordon 01:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Let it Grow A fair article on the Butterley tunnel would swamp the article on Cromford Canal. I live near to this tunnel therefore I have access to library records which do not exist on the net. I assure that it is a story worth telling.Martin Cordon 01:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. A three mile tunnel?! Does this even warrent merging? --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs Count 01:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Fine. I guess it does warrent merging. Now that it has been updated there is some material to merge; however, while there is much more information now, there is still really no strong claim of notability. So... merge relevant information and delete the article. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs 00:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Let it Grow A three mile tunnel is a considerable achievement for men with picks and shovels at the end of the Eighteenth century. Again I refer you to my previous comment. Independent articles already exist for less substantial canal tunnels in Britain. Why should this tunnel be diferent?Martin Cordon 02:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Repeated "votes" from the same editor struck through. Uncle G 09:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Let it Grow A search for Butterley Tunnel on Wikipedia shows that it is referred to by many different pages, including the Benjamin Outram page, the Ripley page, the Butterley Company page, of course the Cromford Canal page. Do you want the Butterley tunnel article merged into every page?Martin Cordon 02:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Let it Grow Danielrocks123 is partly correct. The Cromford Canal page refers directly to the Butterley Tunnel. The Benjamin Outram page refers directly to the Butterley Tunnel. The Ripley, Derbyshire page refers to the canal tunnel, meaning the Butterley Tunnel.The canals of the United Kingdom page refers to the Butterley Tunnel. The Butterley Company page does not, however refer to the tunnel at all, my apologies. But my original comment stands. There are at least four pages which refer to this tunnel. The Canals of the United Kingdom page has a section which directs users specifically to tunnel articles. This page will always be incomplete if some tunnels are allowed pages and others are not.Martin Cordon 02:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with the canal article. I was ready to vote keep, but aside from the collapse the tunnel appears completely unremarkable, and I don't see how it can actually "grow" from here. Martin, saying your argument three or four times doesn't make it stronger. --Dhartung | Talk 04:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge I've changed my view from 'delete" to "merge." P.B. Pilhet / Talk 16:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Cromford Canal page, too short to keep, but if it becomes too long for the Canal page, it can be a sub-page, or a new article can be re-written for it. ¢² Connor K.   20:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Munge Merge with The canal page listed above !paradigm! 19:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)!paradigm!
  • Strong Merge The author, (Martin), has expanded the article a lot more and has added pictures. I think if we merged the article to Cromford Canal, it would help to drive it towards Featured Article status. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 20:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. The article is short, and looking at the sources I'm not convinced it could be expanded beyond the length of a good section on it in Cromford Canal. Also not convinced of notability of the tunnel independent of the canal (the sources primarily feature the canal). Martin's done a beautiful job, and I agree with P.B., this would be an excellent addition to Cromford Canal. Pan Dan 22:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The article now cites multiple sources about the subject, and even includes pictures. Whether merged into Cromford Canal or left standalone, clearly hitting the delete button isn't required here. Merger can be discussed at Talk:Cromford Canal. Uncle G 10:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep i have changed my vote to keep, concidering recent revisions !paradigm! 19:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)!paradigm!
  • Keep Well researched and referenced. I would've said merge if there wasn't so much reliable information in this article. To merge to Cromford Canal would make that article extraordinarily long, with perhaps too much emphasis on this tunnel. --Marriedtofilm 02:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • comment Too long to be practicaly merged. The tunnel was a significant enginnering atchivement of it's day.12:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Surely a 200 year old triumph of civil engineering is noteworthy enough for its own article. It's a strange kind of cultural snobbery that says that any film, album etc. no matter how mediocre is worthy of an article, but human endevour of the engineering kind is not of importance.--JBellis 19:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I, for one, think the article is interesting. But I don't base my judgments of notability on whether I find something interesting or important, I base them on whether published sources think it's notable. In this case I don't see any substantial independent sources that are primarily about the tunnel (as I said in my comment above, they're primarily about the canal). Pan Dan 21:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Watching you trying to delete say Second Severn Crossing should be interesting.Geni 23:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
        • The Institute of Civil Engineers report cited on this page, refers specifically to the tunnel. Martin Cordon 23:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. No reason to delete that I can see. Is this listed anywhere for historic value? Vegaswikian 21:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep major enginearing project for it's time and there is too much material to merge into the cromford canal article.Geni 12:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Canal tunnels have always been notable features of the British landscape. -- Necrothesp 18:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I used to work at Butterley Engineering sited above the tunnel, and know that there is a lot of information to be found/published about the tunnel which, as mentioned by others, does not appear to be readily available elsewhere. Additionally, the Cromford Canal article risks being swamped if this was merged in to it.Jschwa1 11:31, 18 October 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.