Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crawfordsburn Viaduct


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Crawfordsburn Viaduct

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unremarkable bit of civil engineering. I'd redirect to the railway it serves but there does not seem to be an article. TheLongTone (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

*weak delete I'm surprised to come across a railroad viaduct about which little is written, but except for the two localish sources everything other reference is incidental. 17:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangoe (talk • contribs)
 * Given clarification of the listed status, the article should be kept. Mangoe (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

It's a railway viaduct- Articles exist for plenty of others which are just as, if not more, 'incidental'. If it's referenced then what's the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milepost98 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge  There are three articles it could be merged to (Belfast and County Down Railway, Belfast–Bangor line, and Crawfordsburn). Peter James (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * With all due respect that seems unnecessary. Nobody would propose merging Craigmore Viaduct with Great Northern Railway (Ireland), for example, or Boyne Viaduct with the Drogheda article. Why can't notable railway infrastructure have articles separate from their company articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milepost98 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I only suggested to merge as a possible alternative to deletion, if there was consensus that it was not notable enough for an article. Its listed building status (upgraded from B to A) makes it notable. Peter James (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - seems to be a viaduct of sufficient size that it should be capable of sustaining a article. More references are required (tagged) before GNG can be demonstrated to have been met, but needing improvement is not a reason to delete. Mjroots (talk) 13:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Listed building. So obviously the experts don't regard it as an "unremarkable bit of civil engineering". Therefore clearly meets WP:GEOFEAT and does have a very good source. And the railway it serves does have an article, albeit a short one that doesn't mention this structure: Belfast–Bangor line. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking at that document it's unclear what grade of listing it is, but it does incline me towards a keep. Mangoe (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Grade A - it's the letter below "Survey 2". It's clearer by using https://apps.communities-ni.gov.uk/Buildings/ and selecting "North Down" from the list, as the table has columns for current and former grades (not accessible in the current version of iOS as the button to open the page doesn't work). Peter James (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge to: Belfast–Bangor line per suggestion. ww2censor (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Grade A listed buildings in Northern Ireland are always notable; it's the highest level, and the practice here has never been challenged. Based on the discussion above, it seems the article  wasn't clear about the exact status.  DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. DGG's summary suffices. --Doncram (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2018 (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.