Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Avenue South Bridge

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. — CharlotteWebb 14:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Avenue South Bridge

It's a bridge. So what? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• This is a WikiProject Seattle requested article. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Seattle#Open_tasks Brianhe 02:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It's still just a bridge. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    • And this and this are just people writing about it. Then there are the city engineering archives and the wetland mitigation plan ... Uncle G 02:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it's a relatively important bridge that carries a state route and 20,000+ vehicles daily, and more importanly (in Wikipedia terms) has had lots of reliable information written about it ([1] etc). Inbound links from articles... what's the point of deleting this article? --W.marsh 02:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. (|-- UlTiMuS 02:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the way the article on Seattle is written bridges, parks, neighborhoods, schools, etc. are broken out as separate articles. For example see Montlake Bridge, University Bridge, Ship Canal Bridge, George Washington Memorial Bridge, Fremont Bridge (Seattle), Ballard Bridge, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.19.45.139 (talk • contribs).

I find it incredible that George Washington Memorial Bridge is not a disambiguation page! Garrie 23:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Not every bridge is notable, but the documentation on this one seems sufficient enough based on the above comments. Erechtheus 03:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I incline toward a keep, albeit a rather weak keep. It is not particularly notable by itself. In the context of WikiProject Seattle it presumably was included for completeness. The other bridges cited by 24.19.45.139 as part of the same project are of varying degrees of notability. But Wiki is not paper and we can tolerate keeping some borderline material while we wait to see how WikiProject Seattle develops it. Williamborg (Bill) 03:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Felixboy 15:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as W. Marsh has demonstrated its importance. I'd like to let WikiProject Seattle continue to work on it. A consensus of Seattleites felt this article was necessary, and they're the experts on their city. SliceNYC 15:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the reasons above mathewguiver 17:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - bridges in major cities are notable and there are plenty of similar examples already on Wikipedia. No need to single this one out. 23skidoo 18:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - while not every bridge in a city should be listed, since there may be thousands, this is a bascule bridge, which is notable --ArmadilloFromHell 19:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's a bridge. So what? - what criterion does it not meet? This is a bridge too. Could do with an article name that shouts out "Bridge in Seattle" a bit better though.Garrie 23:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment we don't even have a proposed notability standard for structures (masts, bridges, buildings, tunnels, etc...). Without one, I have no rationale to support having an opinion. I do, however, believe that having an standard would be helpful. Modern construction in developed countries will almost always be verifiable due to the way the bidding process for contracts works, but that leads to being an indiscriminate collection of information, so we need something more than just having construction details verifiable. Probably the good old "documents about" with an exclusion for the construction process. GRBerry 13:43, 30 August 2006 (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.