Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul J. Gelegotis Memorial 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. John254 01:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul J. Gelegotis Memorial Bridge

Paul J. Gelegotis Memorial Bridge (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A bridge of no notability. Created by a single-purpose account, given the way it reads likely an associate of Mr Gelegotis. Almost no ghits for Mr Gelegotis [1] and even fewer for "his" bridge. The google links indicate this was a suggested name for the bridge but not that the name was finally chosen. Akihabara 03:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and expand/clean up. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 03:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I concur: No significant sources appear to exist, and WP:NOT a memorial. Shimeru 03:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but move to Stono Bridge. Being the site of a Civil War battle and a slave revolt makes the bridge notable, and even though this is not the same physical structure, a mention of the new bridge should be included in that article. Since the article states "Stono Bridge" is still the more common name, and that was apparently the name in use during those historical events, it should probably be at that name anyway. The official name of the new structure makes a good redirect. Shimeru 02:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bigtop 03:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Bigtop has changed his opinion below...I am striking this one out. alphachimp 03:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Seems to have been named the Paul Gelegotis Bridge[2]. Anyway, there must be at least hundreds of thousands of streets, bridges, motorways, public buildings etc named after local dignitaries in the world. There's nothing to indicate that this particular bridge is especially encyclopedically noteworthy Bwithh 03:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. MER-C 07:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Bridgecruft. It would be nice if another wiki for this kind of stuff existed though. --Improv 08:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The argument that the namesake is not-notable is irrelevant. This article is about a physical structure and this evaluation should hinge on that alone. Unfortunately most of the Deletes above are based on the original premis which is severely flawed. I propose that further research be done to verify that the bridge is notable, and if not the discussion for deletion should resume. --Kevin Murray 01:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

NOTE THAT AS OF 02:03, 25 December 2006 THIS ARTICLE WAS COMPLETELY REWRITTEN WITH MULTIPLE NONTRIVIAL REFERENCES --Kevin Murray 02:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• I change to keep per above note. Bigtop 02:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, since notability has been established. MER-C 02:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Changed my vote to Neutral/Move The new historical context is interesting, and if the article is kept, I would strongly support a move to Stono Bridge. Not enough historical information yet and too many unanswered questions for a full keep !vote from me though. (was the rebellion in the general Stono area, or really centred on Stono Bridge? Was the Civil war clash more than a skirmish/small part of a wider battle?). The article also needs to refocus on the history, not the traffic details. Incidentally, this book should be helpful to the article:[3] Bwithh 02:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Thanks to Kevin for his work. I would not AfD this now. Suggest the article be moved to whatever the official name of the bridge really is. Akihabara 02:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As of right now, the article seems to have sufficient notability to be included. I really don't like the trivia/cruft, but it's not enough to delete it. alphachimp 03:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. All bridges are important and this one has multiple sources to prove that fact. --JJay 04:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I did a little cleanup KnightLago 17:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Nice job KnightLago Shoessss 14:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep References demonstrate notability. --Oakshade 00:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article has been completely rewritten and clearly demonstrates notability using reliable sources. Silensor 06:11, 28 December 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.