Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Efpalinos Tunnel


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothyjosephwood (talk • contribs) 22:41, 20 April 2016‎

Efpalinos Tunnel

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Merge with Motorway 8 (Greece). Timothy Joseph Wood 17:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep -- First, there are multiple tunnels named "Efpalinos Tunnel". In addition to the notable highway tunnel the current article is about there an ancient aqueduct, widely admired, still safe to visit, near Samos.  There is no tactful way to say this.  That this nomination doesn't address the multiple tunnel issue very strongly suggests to me that there has been a serious failure to comply with WP:BEFORE here.  Please!  Comply with WP:BEFORE!
 * Second, merging small articles on notable topics into larger related articles, just because the article is currently small, or currently poorly referenced, is always a bad idea, when there are multiple credible merge targets. That is the case here.  The nomination suggests this article on a notable topic be merged into the article on the roadway it is on.  But, someone could suggest, that it could be merged into an article on Tunnels in Greece, or Tunnels in Europe.  Shoehorning the notable topic into one of the other articles, on a related topic, means that some of the material necessary to properly cover it will be off-topic in the article it is merged into.  The most detailed coverage of the tunnel belongs in an article on the tunnel.  All of the articles it is related to should provide a bit of context surrounding their wikilink to the article on the tunnel.  We are not always smarter than our readers.  Why should we second guess them, second guess how their interests are related?  Why should we force them to only access our information through larger multi-topic articles that dole out information in the order that makes sense to us?
 * Both the current roadway tunnel, and the 2000 year old aqueduct tunnel, merit standalone articles. Geo Swan (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. No rationale for merge presented in nomination. fish &amp;karate 21:13, 20 April 2016 (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.