Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Lock (River Shannon)


 * 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. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Victoria Lock (River Shannon)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There are several locks on the River Shannon, they do not (and probably should not) have their own articles. There is no reason why this particular lock is notable and deserves its own article. Op47 (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * . Phil Bridger (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Why not? It's an engineering structure of some significance. As articles on structures go, it is at least referenced. Should perhaps be expanded by renaming to include other locks on the river. No reason to delete. RashersTierney (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * At present, the subject of this article appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. If you or anyone else can show that I am mistaken then I will be as happy as the original author to see the article kept. If the article had been a list of locks with dimensions and such like then that would probably have been ok. Op47 (talk) 11:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:GEOFEAT appears to indicate a redirect, if anything, certainly not deletion. This lock is no Falkirk Wheel, but is arguably no less notable than the Hanham Lock. RashersTierney (talk) 12:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Other stuff exists is not an argument for keep.
 * 2) The article on Hanham Lock shows how it is notable, the lock keepers house is a listed building.
 * 3) A redirect would be fine by me, howeve a redirect is tantamount to deletion hence I brought it before this forum. Op47 (talk) 13:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a feature on the River Shannon navigation, it is of architectural interest and is a 19th century structure still in use for its original purpose. The Shannon navigation is a major tourist draw in Ireland. Perhaps the article may be more notable to Irish users. Belmonter (talk) 22:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If the River shannon navigation is a major tourist draw then perhaps there ought to be an article on that. I tried to find it but only found a section in the river Shannon article. This situation implies the navigation is not separately notable but the lock is. I cannot see any justification for that. In addition, ff this lock is a feature on the navigation then I cannot see why the other locks are not a feature. If it is any help, I would be happy for this article to become an article on the navigation in general. Op47 (talk) 13:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly, and for the many others who use the navigation, as is the Albert Lock (River Shannon). RashersTierney (talk) 23:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The article needs to say why the lock is notable. per WP:GNG the criteria for being notable is the subject of the article must be the subject of multiple non trivial references independent of the subject. That seems to me to be an objective measurement of its notability. As I said above, if you can show that then I am more than happy for the article to stay. Op47 (talk) 13:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge -- There is a section of the canalised section of the river in the article River Shannon. I would suggest that be used as a starting point for an article on the navigation, inot which the articles on indiviual locks can be merged.  I do not think we need an article on every lock.  It we had one for every lock on every British canal, we would be creating hundreds of unnecessary articles.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep As this is a significant part of a large navigable river system, there is not the slightest case for deletion as the worse case is that we'd merge per WP:PRESERVE. As the feature is noted for both its architectural significance and as a beauty spot, there seems to be ample reason to develop this further. Warden (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * More than 1 person has stated that the lock has architectural merit without presenting any evidence or stating how its architectural has merit. When I have looked at pictures, all I have seen is a perfectly ordinary lock.
 * WP:PRESERVE does not apply here, this is a discussion as to whether the subject of this article should have its own article. No-one has suggested destroying the information within this article, rather what has been suggested is in someway expand the scope of the article. As far as I can tell the only questions are whether:

1) The content of this article is merged into the River Shannon article 2) A new article on the River Shannon Navigation is created 3) This article is renamed to be the River Shannon Navigation article.
 * In none of the above does it imply that the information in this artcle is destroyed. I think the purposes of Wikipedia would be better served if one of the above options were taken rather than keeping the article as it is. Op47 (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Op47 has suggested destroying the information within this article by proposing that it be deleted. If this is not his intention then the discussion should be speedily closed per WP:SK, "The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging". Warden (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * First, nobody is suggesting "destroying" information; please avoid such inflammatory language. Secondly, Warden, you've been told this before, multiple times, WP:PRESERVE is editing policy, not deletion policy, and is irrelevant to AfD. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a deletion discussion and so the primary issue is the destruction of this article and its edit history. WP:PRESERVE is entirely consistent with our deletion policy which lists many alternatives to deletion in much the same way and for the same reason — that we prefer to keep content which has some merit.  Warden (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but that doesn't change the fact that calling it "destruction" is loaded language that can easily be interpreted as an attempt to emotionally prejustice opinions. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm tending towards options 2) or 3) above. It is pretty extraordinary that a dedicated article on the Shanon navigation doesn't exist. There is plenty of source material, if eds are prepared to get 'stuck in'. It would also situate this structure in a meaningful context. RashersTierney (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I have added the following to the article:

Protected Status

The Record of Protected Structures lists both the lock and the lock keepers cottage as protected structures (ref 38-05 & 38-04).

The lock is listed by the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage (a service provided by the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht) as being of special interest in the architectural and technical interest categories in addition to being significant for its size. The Lock keepers house is similarly listed as being of special interest in the architectural and technical interest categories. Belmonter (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Which now means the lock satisfies WP:GEOFEAT. Thankyou Belmonter. I am happy to withdraw the nomination on the grounds that the article has been altered to satisfy my original concerns. In light of the comments about the River Shannon Navigation, I will place a split tag on River Shannon so that may be discused in its rightful place. Op47 (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep and close - Notability established and nomination withdrawn. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:14, 10 January 2013 (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.