Deletion of Aqua Anio Novus

Comment: no importance" is simply a matter of opinion.  Personally, I don't find a number of celebrities to be of great importance, but they are covered by numerous reliable sources, and therefore are |notable, facts about them are |verifiable, and thus they meet our inclusion criteria.  Likewise, there are plenty of sources that treat the Aqua Anio Novus: http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/40310747.pdf this paper, along with a number of others discussing the "four great aqueducts of ancient Rome" is on jstor; http://www.idrogeologiaquantitativa.it/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Pubb_1996_water_supply.pdf this, on Roman aqueducts more generally, appears to be publically accessible
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V)

Comment: This is almost certainly a bad-faith nomination as nobody creates a user account and then nominates a single article for deletion. Regardless, this article could use more sourcing and I'd be pleased if an admin |put this into my userspace so I could rewrite, clean it up, and then re-publish it and get a DYK out of it. I'm not going to render my opinion on this particular aqueduct's notability as it looks like the consensus is forming to keep, but I'd like to remind those for keeping this article that fire really is the best cleanser
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Userfication (WP:USERFY)