Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General Pierce 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. Singularity 18:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General Pierce Bridge

General Pierce Bridge (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contested prod. Article offers no information beyond location and no sources. Appears to be nothing special or notable in construction. Google has 21 unique hits without Wikipedia, a couple of local media reports on renovations, the rest as a place marker in directions or stories about bodies being pulled out of the river. Nuttah68 16:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I'm not from the area, so I'm not intimately familiar with the bridge, but based on a little research the bridge appears to be at least 750 ft long. This is a rather sizable distance and hence seems like a significant structure. Right now the article is short, but I've seen stubs that are shorter. This article can be expanded to include the history of the bridge and the namesake (General Pierce) could be explored. VerruckteDan 16:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

  Comment 750ft is nowhere near significant in terms of bridges and any notability General Pierce may have is his, it does not qualify anything named for him to an article. Nuttah68 16:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. There are plenty of sources that can be used to beef up this stub. The nominator's assertion that "Google has 21 unique hits without Wikipedia" is false because most locals refer to it simply as the Pierce Bridge. wikipediatrix 16:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: No assertion of notability in the article, no significant coverage in third party sources is cited in the article, article can never be any more than a stub. At best, this could be merged into an article about the crossings of the Connecticut River. If it is true that there are "plenty of sources that can be used to beef up this stub," then those who wish to keep this article ought to use them. Notability among locals (which has yet to be established by citing reliable sources) does not necessarily mean notability enough for a Wikipedia article. Nick Graves 16:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Size does not make it notable nor does only being 750 ft make it not notable. What is needed are reliable sources. If these 21 google hits are sources, or other sources can be found, then it is notable. Just being there, and having a particular size, is not the point. If there are sources that can expand the history, then that is fine. Are there? And yes General Pierce can stay on his own page. I'm leaning toward delete since I see none yet, though if there are plenty that will be great. Obina 16:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

  Ahh added as I wrote the above. These source call it the Pierce Bridge. The article should be called that and the full name mentioned in the intro. And some of these source should be added.Obina 16:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: I'm working on getting statistics for all these crossings. Whether that's sufficient to you, I can't say. Denimadept 16:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: On July 31st, the bridge in Minneapolis was like this then on August 1st it all of a sudden became notable, same could happen here. Davnel03 19:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I'm inclined to apply WP:OUTCOMES here and say geographical locations such as bridges crossing a major river are per se notable. Wl219 19:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What are the limits on that? For instance, VerruckteDan has said that while this bridge may be notable, US Route 3 Bridge over the Connecticut River is probably not. See Talk:General Pierce Bridge Denimadept 20:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep strong consensus exists that such structures are inherently notable. Alansohn 23:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. As Alansohn notes, the structure is inherently notable; additionally, there are independent sources (one from the council of government for the region, one from a newspaper) discussing the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 01:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Many bridge or road articles have started as stubs like this one. The article is likely to expand and be full of relevant and notable information by the time the new bridge is open. The bridge was built in 1947, so I wouldn't expect to find many references on the web. Off-line references should be acceptable also; maybe someone needs to go to the library and look it up in old newspapers. - SCgatorFan 03:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for consistency within List of crossings of the Connecticut River. That was my rationale for creating I-35W Mississippi River bridge in the first place, and it became very notable (for tragic reasons) on August 1. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 12:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Is this really notable outside the local area? Just like any other structure which narrow scope of notability, I do not think this warrants inclusion. I do not think WP is a directory of bridges Corpx 03:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This is precisely why we have WP:LOCAL and WP:BIAS. Notable local places are still notable even if local, as long as WP:RS exist. Wl219 03:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Neither of those are policies or guidelines Corpx 04:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• So? Doesn't mean they're not worthy of consideration. Your comment is quite short-sighted. Wl219 04:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

They should be considered, but should be given the same weight as other essays etc that have no backing through consensus Corpx 05:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Major river crossings should be inherently notable like U.S. Highways and historical sites--Appraiser 18:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Bridge is no less notable than other crossings of major rivers with stub articles. Eco84 | Talk 20:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep While the present bridge may be fairly new, the crossing that used to be at that location was one of the longest covered bridges of its time. I'm not familiar with the area but will try to see what I can dig up. There's also an old book "Crossing and Recrossing the Connecticut River" that should have historical information on the previous structure at this location which I'll try and borrow from the library on Monday. --Polaron | Talk 23:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll look for that too! Denimadept 00:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

For that matter, here's a bibiliography! Denimadept 00:38, 25 August 2007 (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.