Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left Bank Outfall Drain


 * 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'm closing this as keep, although I had to think about it for awhile. Many of those arguing "delete" admit there is coverage about it, but argue the subject is too trivial despite coverage. Other "keep" !votes argue the topic is indeed of significant importance, and worthy of encyclopedic attention. On the balance, even though the "delete" votes win numerically 7 to 5, the stronger arguments lie with keep. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 04:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Left Bank Outfall Drain

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nothing signifies its encyclopedia value. WP:WWIN. Saqib (talk) 04:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Note a similar article by the same author is now deleted : Articles for deletion/Right Bank Outfall Drain. --Saqib (talk) 04:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Sources are WP:PRIMARY and circulated across internet through sources that are ultimately related with the primary source. Lack of independent coverage in third party sources. Capitals00 (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. There was some coverage for disaster in 2011, though nothing significant. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep There are sources like The Nation, The Express Tribune and Dawn which cannot be categorized primary by any means plus nom did not specify how the subject has no encyclopedic value. Without such clear cut specification saying "no encyclopedic value" is nothing more than mere empty words.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 10:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The nom says "Nothing signifies its encyclopedia value." Coverage exists but I don't think it make sense to have a standalone article on a topic that can be described briefly in another article. --Saqib (talk) 10:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Nom uses mere empty words, the subject easily passes WP:10YT, the structures like canals are supposed to last years.There were delete votes with the reasoning that article relies on primary sources which required a rebuttal.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 10:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Do we have standalone articles on drainage canals? --Saqib (talk) 10:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We can definitely have if needed be, every subject which is notable can have an article.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 10:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually I asked you for a few examples. I still feel we don't need a standalone article on What I call an ordinary drainage canal per WP:EXISTENCE, even though it has received press coverage. --Saqib (talk) 10:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Your nom says "no encyclopedic value" without elaborating how and why, which can be encountered with "yes encyclopedic value" without elaborating further, your nom is poor and it just conveys WP:IDONTLIKEIT on your part. You created plethora of articles on MPs who merely exist and have nominal coverage in the press. We do not go by the examples on Wikipedia, a drainage canal should not be a pariah on Wikipedia, an article on similar subject not existing should not mean that one can never be created.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 21:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note I have added a friendly search suggestion template to add more coverage, despite the current amount meeting WP:GNG--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Redundant to have own article. It doesn't deserve standalone article because the subject has not gained prominence in independent sources. You have to find coverage that has been made exclusively about the drain, that makes it worthwhile enough to create standalone article. Raymond3023 (talk) 09:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think article has sufficient notability per, and other sources , so its a keep by me.    M A A Z     T A L K   00:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Trivial coverage. Nothing about this subject justifies having stand alone article in an encyclopedia.  MBlaze Lightning  talk 05:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 11:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WWIN. Lack of importance as described above. Sdmarathe (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment--I'm not at all convinced about the coverage levels to possess an independent article.Per alternatives to deletion, I think the article can be minimally merged to some where, pending which the article can be redirected.Any ideas?! ~ Winged Blades Godric 13:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the Indus River might be a possible candidate for a merge (though not an ideal one). The idea behind this project was to drain water from the irrigation around this river and it does run parallel to it. Ideally, I think what is needed is a Irrigation in Pakistan article which encapsulates a lot of these small articles which currently do not meet WP:GNG and have few sources. I will throw in a few names Trimmu Barrage, Chashma Barrage, Zam System, Kotri Barrage, Chashma Right Bank Irrigation Project. There are other articles which seem to have sufficient content like Sukkur Barrage which can stand on their own but might find mention in this new article. An ideal article to start here would be with Water resources management in Pakistan which can be converted to Irrigation in Pakistan. As a side note, I feel sometimes editors show up to XFD discussions with very little knowledge about the topic itself and spend even less time in what can be done to improve it and more time in arguing one way or the other. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To discuss the new sources.
 * Keep many multiple independent news articles (in English!) in a Before search to have this man-made geographic feature pass WP:GNG. Article could be improved further. SportingFlyer  talk  02:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:MILL. Nothing significant about the subject. Coverage is also entirely related with the primary sources, nothing significant that would assert notability or importance .Fails WP:GEOFEAT. Razer ( talk ) 16:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note I have cleaned up the article and added several citations. SportingFlyer  talk  18:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The subject is not just Wikinotable but extremely important (in fact, lives depend on it) for millions of people. It appears in sources, both western and local, whose number and extent of coverage renders it worthy of a stand-alone article. (Which, I hasten to add, could use some improvement. Who couldn't?) -The Gnome (talk) 05:13, 13 May 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.