Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lukmanier Powerline

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. Renaming as proposed as an editorial action.  Sandstein  05:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lukmanier Powerline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

PROD contested. No assertion of notability. Google Books turns up no relevant hits, Google Web serach show passing mentions but nothing that says this powerline is particularly notable. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you try Google Book search for Mettlen–Lavorgo powerline or Mettlen–Lavorgo line, there will be a lot of results. Beagel (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k

(talk) 02:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Searches under "Mettlen–Lavorgo" turn up a lot of studies and results. The powerline appears to be most notable for the 2003 Italy blackout and this article offers much more about the powerline than the blackout article. I would suggest renaming the article to "Mettlen–Lavorgo Powerline" for commonality.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability established, with solid references regarding the 2003 blackout. The title probably led to the confusion. I agree that a name change would be good. Nihola (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per NortyNort and Nihola. If the result will be keep, rename to "Mettlen–Lavorgo Powerline". Beagel (talk) 04:43, 10 March 2011 (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.