Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bayard Bridge
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Mgm|(talk) 12:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bayard Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- Please also see the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilson Bridge (North Branch Potomac River).
- Delete: The bridge doesn't seem to meet WP:N notability guidelines. It's a minor bridge for a county road and is not inherently unique. Brian Powell (talk) 07:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. —Brian Powell (talk) 07:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete its just a bridge, small span and likely very low cost. No reliable sources, does not meet the criteria at WP:N. Icewedge (talk) 07:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Bayard, West Virginia. I found one source that indicates there's more to the bridge than meets the eye. Not enough to support a separate entry, but enough to include it somewhere. - Mgm|(talk) 11:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Is the in-depth subject of secondary sources, the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. In addition to the source found by Mgm, there's also this one.--Oakshade (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: While there's an article talking about its replacement, I don't necessarily see that making this span particularly notable or worthy of its own article. I'm sure if you were to do a search you'll find dozens of articles a year discussing upcoming bridge replacements. The fact is that we're talking about a 125-foot long bridge [1] over a small river that's currently closed. Even when the bridge is rebuilt, it just is for a minor county road and probably won't have more than a couple hundred cars a day. Brian Powell (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Crystal Ball speculation as to the "probably" low-importance in the future is not a proper Wikipedia method to decide notability. While you might not think this bridge is important, it actually was important enough for secondary sources to write in-depth articles about it. Not only can a 125 foot bridge be notable, but a 25 foot bridge can be too. Length has absolutely nothing to do with notability. --Oakshade (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm not sure that your comment about WP:CRYSTAL really applies here - that deals with prediction of future events. That's not what we're debating. We're discussing if this bridge is notable and unique enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Based on what has been developed in this article over the least 2 years, the only discussion in the newspaper articles as being of the difficulty in finding replacement funding until 25 years after the bridge was closed, and the extremely rural low-traffic nature of the area[2], I don't see that this bridge justifies an article on its own. As part of a larger article about Bayard or bridges of the Upper North Branch Potomac, maybe. Brian Powell (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Named bridges over named rivers are notable. For a bridge of even this size, there will always be sufficient sourced material to write an article. For all the other bridges Bmpowell alludes to, let's have articles--WP is NOT PAPER. DGG (talk) 17:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as an officially named bridge, hense a 'place'. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 21:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The "Bayard" in the name is not really an official name, per se. It just refers to the closest town, Bayard, West Virginia. This is standard practice for referring to bridges in West Virginia. Brian Powell (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Nom's concerns re: WP:N have been satisfied by sources provided. It does not matter whom considers it "a minor bridge" (as others surely will not) if there are reliable secondary sources. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 06:20, 25 November 2008 (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.