Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bentley Brook


 * 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 per WP:OUTCOMES, physical features such as creeks are always notable, but this one seems to have a bit more going for it. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 17:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Bentley Brook

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Reason the page should be deleted 14:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It is only a small stream and isn't a very interesting subject to write about as there are many, many small streams and brooks in the world that don't have articles about them, why should Bentley Brook? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 666ph666 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Bentley Brook has an article because someone bothered to write one. Whether you find it interesting or not isn't really the point.  It's classed as a main river by the Environment Agency and geographical features are usually deemed notable on Wikipedia. Because of its location and the fact that it's narrow and fast flowing it now has the remains of six water mills, the most concentrated example of early water power in Britain.  Is that significant? Well, water powered mills were the basis of the early industrial revolution, powering corn grinding, saw mills, paint making, fertiliser production, lead smelting and so forth at this very site and it's the industrial revolution which created the modern world. Nick mallory 15:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec'd) Keep For the reasons presented by Nick. There are no issues with the notability or encyclopedic value here. Pedro | Chat  15:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The historical element makes this a "keep". MarkBul 15:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per MarkBul and WP:OUTCOMES regarding geographical places. Wl219 16:14, 4 September 2007 (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.