Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elbe Crossing 2

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 merge to Elbe Crossing 1. While a redirect could be in order, the merge argument makes more sense, combining the two articles, with only the citable material from this one seems the best option. There was only a single weak keep. The alternative to merging would be to delete, but since there is citable material, and the other article already exists, that appears to be the way to go. The only question is after merging, should the target article's name be changed? (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elbe Crossing 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, routine, power-transmission towers. Alsee (talk) 03:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Searching in German on "Elbekreuzung 2" turns up lots of hits. Elbe Crossing 1/2 appear to be the highest electrical transmission towers in Europe. Someone who reads German may be able to analyze better. 04:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep for now - I think some work probably needs to be done figuring out the strength of the German sources for this and Elbe Crossing 1 and integrating them into the main article, and possibly a merge of the two articles should be performed, but given that this appears to be a large and important piece of infrastructure deleting it seems off. Artw (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete this is a giant electric pole. The claim of "tallest in Europe" might be enough to keep the article, but that's original research with no citations, and Pylons of Messina are supposedly taller. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Followup Comment by nominator: I did an exhaustive search. German Wikipedia doesn't have any sources that we don't already have. Google returns 53 hits for "Elbe Crossing 2" -wikipedia and 119 hits for "Elbekreuzung 2" -wikipedia. I checked them all. Many hits, such as forums and flickr, could be dismissed based search result itself. I often used Google Translate to check foreign language hits. A lot of hits were mirroring Wikipedia (including a scam "book" of repackaged Wikipedia articles), sites with personal photos, forums, indiscriminate map/database sites, etc. There was exactly one meaningful result:[1] Some adrenaline-junkie climbed it, getting covered in the local newspaper. A 100% exhaustive internet search turned up one kinda-lame local source. Alsee (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Electricity_sector_in_Germany#Transmission_network. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge The two Elbe Crossing articles into one, maybe? Gatemansgc (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not convinced there's enough in the two articles combined to justify a stand alone merged article, but certainly a merge would be better than keeping both. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge There is no mention of these towers in Electricity_sector_in_Germany#Transmission_network, so a Redirect is not appropriate. Merge with Elbe Crossing 1. MB 03:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.