Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Towney Lock


 * 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 no consensus. Daniel (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Towney Lock

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I believe this Kennet and Avon Canal Lock article does not meet WP:GNG (WP:NBUILD), as there is no significant source coverage directly addressing the individual Lock available. I believe there is little possible notable information to include, and therefore the article is not worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. The information in this article is also duplicated in List of locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal (Grid Ref/Listed Building/Rise or Fall are all part of this table - hence deletion of this article would not result in any loss of information anyway).

I am also separately nominating the following Locks for deletion as well - however I will nominate them individually, as it is possible some may have more notability or be deemed worthy of keeping for a different reason and may hence deserve their own AfD discussion (as per WP:MULTIAFD).

(list omitted) Mangoe (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: I believe some Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal are notable, and therefore I have not included those pages which I believe meet WP:GNG in an AfD. Thank you for your consideration and comments. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't believe we need an article for each and every lock along the way. The Erie Canal article only has highlights for a few of them. A few in the list above are "Listed Structures" (or whatever the particular heritage listing uses in the UK), which might be notable. Individually designated buildings (in the NRHP in the USA for example) are usually deemed to be important enough for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Procedural close per WP:TRAINWRECK. Narky Blert (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I appreciate your Procedural close per WP:TRAINWRECK, but would like your advice in how to nominate these articles for deletion if it is not individually. I consulted WP:MULTIAFD which seemed to suggest policy was not to bundle this type of AfD together, however I have briefly researched each article and believe they are all non-notable, and so I believed an individual nomination of each was the best policy. I would appreciate your advice on how to go about this AfD. Thank you for your help. Mxtt.prior (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Either nominate them one at a time, or nominate a batch of no more than 4 or 5 which have the identical easily-identified issue. No-one is going to wade through a list of 20 or 30 articles grouped together to determine if perhaps one might be notable or if perhaps one might not be. This and your other nominations are prime candidates for WP:NOCONSENSUS, because no-one will feel like putting the work in, and your efforts will therefore have been wasted. I don't post much at AFD; but when I do it takes me at least 10-15 minutes to research any individual nomination. Narky Blert (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * keep: Mainly because the set of articles describing the canal at least are consistent and able to be followed. Agree this would be a WP:TRAINWRECK if approached.  In practice this would be a merge cleanup which would involve a lot of volunteer effort and AfD is a very bad place to do that. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sigh This is a situation in which a group of articles contains some which are notable enough for their own article and some which at least marginally are not. This particular article is borderline - I do see enough mentions in book entries that you could make a reasonable yet weak keep argument for this one, and another one I looked at randomly was probably a weak delete. We really don't have a good practice for "some of these articles should really be in a list" when nominated en masse. I do not want to see any of this information deleted, but the nominator is correct in that some of them really do not deserve stand-alone articles. I'd feel more comfortable if a list of locks were created via merger and then we deleted the non-notable ones. SportingFlyer  T · C  22:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, merge or redirect . Given the existence of a list article that these appear on and that some individual locks are notable, all of these titles are plausible search terms so every lock that does not have an article should be a redirect to the list or some other article with information about them. Thryduulf (talk) 02:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Procedural close all the lock nominations per WP:TRAINWRECK. Having now seen that these have all been individually nominated there is no way that anyone is going to go through and spend the time going through evaluating all these on a deadline. If you must nominate them for deletion rather than starting a discussion about merging first then nominate a maximum of about 5 per day, either 5 individually or small groups totalling about 5 locks. Thryduulf (talk) 03:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi I apologise for going about this in the wrong way and creating a trainwreck - that was never my intention. Thank you for your advice, I believed this was the best approach but I can now see I was very wrong, and have learnt a lot. Mxtt.prior (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 20:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * keep: I searched Google Book and I saw a number sources mentioning Towney Lock. It seems Towney Lock is notable.Wasraw (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge into List of locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal. Lomrjyo (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly accepts that a canal lock can be notable. There are going to be reliable sources for each of them, and in this case someone has created a family of pages on the locks of the K&A canal, which could become quite a useful resource. It isn’t particularly useful for now, except for the photos, but they are still good things to have. I should say add  tags and give them a few years to develop, review again in due course. Moonraker (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2021 (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.