Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olchfa footbridge

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was 7 votes to delete, 4 votes to keep... err... that is not a two thirds majority so this will have to be called a no consensus result (keep) Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Olchfa footbridge

This one probably goes without saying. Not specific enough to be relevant to a wider article on the school, area, or city. No significant history to separate it from millions of other unimportant footbridges. Might be worth keeping if there's somewhere to showcase examples of articles people shouldn't write. Otherwise, bin it.

• Keep. It's a civic structure that has an appropriately sized article written about it. I'd like to see an external reference or two, but other than that, this article appears to be pretty well complete and proper. --Unfocused 15:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • No, it's not a "civic structure that has an appropriately sized article", it's an ordinary footbridge. You won't find an external reference, because it's an ordinary footbridge which is in no way, locally, historically, politically or architecturally important. It's just one of millions of footbridges over millions of busy roads all over the world. This bridge is less qualified than your average Wikipedia user to have an article. This is "dangerous precedent" territory. 62.252.32.13 16:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment I saw reference to "a number of accidents" prior to its installation. It's local importance is obvious for public safety. There is no "dangerous precedent" unless you think we're running out of paper, which we're obviously not. Average wikipedians are not civic structures; are not public works projects. "Ordinary" is not equal to "worthless". (Millions? Really? Where do you get that number?) I could even see where a little more expansion would be welcome. --Unfocused 17:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

      I say millions, based on the fact that UK railway network alone has some 10,000 footbridges across its length (around 2000 at stations), and that along 10 miles of major roads in this city, there are some 50 footbridges. I think millions around the world is a safe assumption.

      • Comment Find an appropriate place to MERGE it, and you'll have no complaint from me. --Unfocused 17:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment User:Thryduulf created this virtually all in one swoop, including the photos. Based on his other contributions, he's obviously a good contributor. But he's on vacation until the 26th or 27th of this month, so this vote will be settled by the time he returns. Please consider Jimbo Wales' opinion on what to do with trivial articles from good contributors. --Unfocused 12:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • This doesn't in any way suggest anything remotely related to articles on trivial subjects. It deals with "X is a Y in Z", i.e. content-trivial, articles. 62.252.32.12 14:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • No, you didn't read the link I posted carefully enough. Jimbo Wales very specifically says "trivial articles". He very specifically says to cut good contributors some slack on their addition of trivial articles, even if we wouldn't want thousands of such articles in the encyclopedia. He's very clear about giving good contributors some room to do what interests them and that doing so is completely harmless and should be accomodated. Nuking a good contributor's well written article while they're on vacation (that they even posted notice of on their user page) is a very unfriendly, anti-community thing to do. I would suggest that we at least wait the additional week or two as a courtesy to User:Thryduulf. See WP:DICK --Unfocused 20:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete, not notable. However this article may have some content (e.g. images) that should be included in the footbridge article, which is currently just a very short stub. KFP 17:21, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge somewhere per Unfocused. Kappa 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. RickK 21:52, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Is this a joke? It's a footbridge, people. Gamaliel 21:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a footbridge across a road, no more notable than the other million or so footbridges across roads. Change a few names and dates, and this article could be about any of those million others. --Carnildo 21:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, sub-trivial. Radiant_>|< 09:02, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per the other delete votes. Quale 23:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Dare I say merge with the school? If no one makes an article about the school, keep until such time. --SPUI (talk) 14:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Not really specific to the school, so it wouldn't belong there. I would suggest merging into the city as a whole, if it weren't for the fact that there are too many footbridges to fit into the article, and they'd all need equal mention (NPOV, etc). 62.252.32.12 14:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia needs more well-researched and written articles of this nature, not less. Mundanity is in the eye of the beholder. Keep. --Centauri 04:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.