Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billings Canal


 * 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Billings Canal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PROD contested without comment. Original reason was: "There is no assertion of notability. There are very few reliable sources on the topic, and the article has been an orphan for over 3 years now." Should the article not be deleted, it should probably be redirected to "Billings Bench Water Association Canal" as that is the official name of the canal. A.  L.   H.  15:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic is notable, e.g. "Billings or "Flow of Water in Irrigation and Similar Canals. Warden (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I had seen those sources when I added the PROD. The problem is that "Billings" has a single paragraph on the canal, and "Flow of Water in Irrigation and Similar Canals" doesn't contain any information about the canal beyond a few observations about things like the flow or the composition of the banks. Other people may feel differently, but to me those both seemed to have little more than passing mentions about the canal. A.   L.   H.  06:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:SIGCOV states "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. I consider these sources to be significant in this way.  Also, the canal seems to be a significant topographical feature and so will appear in maps and atlases. Warden (talk) 09:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep- The coverage so far isn't great, but it is significant enough to pass WP:GNG as well as playing an important roll in the development of Billings and surrounding areas.--Oakshade (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 01:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. The article itself is in some serious need of research and rewriting, though. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems an important geographic feature of he area, but based on their web site, the article could and should be very considerably expanded. There is probably local historical sources available also. Irrigation was avery important factory in the history of this part of the US. More generally, there is a key difference between "no reliable sources" and "few reliable sources" -- one means we cannot write an article, the other means we can.  DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 11 April 2013 (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.