Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Lawrence Dam


 * 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   redirect to Bering Strait bridge.  MBisanz  talk 02:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

St. Lawrence Dam

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. Non-notable research project. Only very recently published. Could not find any third-party reliable sources. Millbrooky (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Hope nobody takes the proposal (the dam I mean) seriously. NVO (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect – To Bering Strait bridge under Alternatives. It would flesh out this paragraph, and if or when it gains more popularity, could be split out at that point. ShoesssS Talk 19:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is just a proposal put forward by an architect that has not been accepted or endorsed by either government. The only valid news coverage found again only details the plans and benefits with no details on implementation. Should be deleted per WP:CRYSTAL. However, if current sources are satisfactory enough, a merge to Bering Strait bridge might be fine. Although, since the connection is established by the proposal itself, I personally doubt the credibility of such merger. LeaveSleaves talk 03:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - If reviewing under your proposed criteria, all articles concerning the Bering Strait bridge should be deleted as they all would fall under Crystal, in that all are just in the proposal stage at this point. A merge is a more prudent decision, regarding this piece, in that the proposal has not been accepted or rejected, but just suggested as an alternate solution to the situation. ShoesssS Talk 23:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, when I wrote my response I did feel that somebody would say how is this article different from Bering Strait bridge. Well, what my line of thought was: although Bering Strait bridge is a proposed project, it has significant historical and media coverage to consider that it is notable. Its viability has been considered on both engineering and political level. When we evaluate present article on this level: it has been proposed by an independent architect couple of months ago and has had very scarce media or technical coverage, at least from what my search results indicate. Now, I'm not an expert in the area and perhaps my search criteria is very narrow. But, I feel the the encyclopedic value of this topic at the moment is extremely spotty and perhaps in future, if the project is considered seriously this may be covered.
 * On a separate note, the article based completely on a single primary source and lacks third-party reliable sources. LeaveSleaves talk 01:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Hey Sleaves, I agree, the proposal itself does not deserve an article, St. Lawerence Dam section that is. However, since a noted geogeaphical engineering, Rolf Schuttenhelm, has received more than a little coverage concrning his proposal, as noted here ], I felt the piece should not be descarded out of hand, but rather merged into the Bering Strait bridge piece.  This fleshes out the Bering Strait bridge article under alternatives and does justice to the  Dam piece.  Thanks!  ShoesssS Talk 12:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if you believe that the proposal would be notable enough, I'll take your word for it. LeaveSleaves talk 12:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Sandstein   18:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions.   —Dual Freq (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.   —Dual Freq (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.   —Dual Freq (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Jamie ☆ S93  03:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete fails notability. Dlabtot (talk) 03:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Bold merge? If notable at all seems to belong in a broader article on the subject matter. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with Bering Strait bridge, since it doesn't appear to have enought notability for its own article.  Linguist At Large  05:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. "St. Lawrence Dam" was also a proposed dam across the Saint Lawrence River,  Linguist At Large  05:27, 20 November 2008 (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.