Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridges in art

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 KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 20:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bridges in art

This isn't encyclopedic. Letting this survive will lead to articles such as Chairs in art, Oranges in art, Pyramids in art, etc.. (unsigned)

• I think it would be best to include such info in the article about bridges. Move and delete. Mgm|^(talk) 09:45, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• I note that it was originally split out of bridge. Interesting, useful information. Keep or merge back with bridge. Kappa 09:53, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I've expanded this, and may continue Kappa 11:54, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Entirely encyclopedic. If we can have a book The Pig in Art, Michael Ryba, ISBN 0-85613-544-5 or this external page Noli me tangere in art, then we can have many articles such as this in Wikipedia. -- RHaworth 12:36, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
• Marge back interesting and encyclopedic, but doesn't need its own article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:15, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Keep information, definitely. Does not much matter whether it is a separate article or merged somewhere, but I think there is enough content here now to warrant keeping. I don't agree that this is a precedent for a family of Cruft in Art articles, because bridges are widely regarded as having an aesthetic dimension. "Earth has not anything to show more fair:/Dull would he be of soul who could pass by/A sight so touching in its majesty"—Wordworth, and I will add this to the article soon. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:48, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the information; no opinion really on whether this belongs in a separate page, but there seems to be enough here to justify a page separate from bridge. -- Smerdis of Tlön 16:22, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Bridges can be aesthetic, like many designed objects, and partly because of this, they have been the subject of art works. So what? There might be something interesting to say about what makes a subject fit for a picture or a poem and why bridges fit those criteria. But that wouldn't be this article, since it is just a dumb raw list of poems, songs, paintings, etc that have some connection to bridges, in some cases a very slight connection. For example, it includes "Bridge TV", a cable channel that tries to bridge between opposing factions in the Middle East. If it is not deleted, at least it should be retitled to something like List of art works about bridges, and cleaned up. --BM 16:54, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Perhaps a move, or a merge into something (not bridge), but this is quite encyclopedic. —Korath (Talk) 18:13, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with bridge. Wyss 19:43, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Enyclopedic, interesting and useful. The sort of article Wikipedia needs more - not less - of.--Centauri 21:52, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well done. Gamaliel 22:17, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Centauri and Gamaliel said it best. - Lucky 6.9 18:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, excellent. —RaD Man (talk) 21:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, well done. humblefool® 00:30, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep.--Patrick 00:50, Feb 18, 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.