Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aqua Anio Novus


 * 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. I am early closing this under our snowball clause justified by Ignore all rules and saving everybody's time as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. (non-admin closure) — Sam Sailor 03:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Aqua Anio Novus

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No importance Doojdooj (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC) — Doojdooj (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 15.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 05:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Nominator's rationale seems insufficient. How is it not important? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 08:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 08:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 08:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 08:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 08:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep, clearly a notable historical monument, sloppy nomination. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. "no importance" is simply a matter of opinion.  Personally, I don't find a number of celebrities to be of great importance, but they are covered by numerous reliable sources, and therefore are notable, facts about them are verifiable, and thus they meet our inclusion criteria.  Likewise, there are plenty of sources that treat the Aqua Anio Novus: this paper, along with a number of others discussing the "four great aqueducts of ancient Rome" is on jstor; this, on Roman aqueducts more generally, appears to be publically accessible. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And here is a short article (jstor again) specifically on the Anio Novus... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep We have 14 aqueducts in the City of Rome in Category:Classical aqueducts in Rome, and many more in Category:Roman aqueducts outside Rome. There is no reason to exclude this one.  Nom simply made a mistake. Mistakes happen., hey, do you wanna just withdraw this one?E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait I was WP:AGF, but this nom is by a SPA who has made only this edit. There is no justification at all for this deletion. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:SNOW Suggest that the next editor who happens long just close it, because there has never been a clearer case for KEEP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment This is almost certainly a bad-faith nomination as nobody creates a user account and then nominates a single article for deletion. Regardless, this article could use more sourcing and I'd be pleased if an admin put this into my userspace so I could rewrite, clean it up, and then re-publish it and get a DYK out of it. I'm not going to render my opinion on this particular aqueduct's notability as it looks like the consensus is forming to keep, but I'd like to remind those for keeping this article that fire really is the best cleanser. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 16:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Endorse User:Chris troutman's generous offerto improve this cursory article. I did add 1 RS to the article, which can certainly support an upgrade.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep -- The water supply to a city the size of Rome is certainly important. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, I don't understand why it was nominated.--Pampuco (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Nominator has made precisely three edits, all in the name of deleting this article. Rationale provided by nominator is insufficient. No actual case for deleting this article has been made at this time. Beyond that, keep because other editors have pledged to work on the article and there is more that can be done with it. Only when all this has been said and done should deletion be revisited, and I find it unlikely that it will be deleted even then. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 21:35, 15 January 2017 (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.