Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/222nd Street 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. J04n(talk page) 19:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

222nd Street Bridge

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bridge appears to fail the GNG. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable bridge on non-notable road. Dough 48 72 23:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We've gone through this before. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-99 Wamego Bridge for an example of a previous AFD. Bridge articles on highways normally end up being kept as stubs simply because they eventually are proven to pass the general notability guideline through offline sources, which takes more time. Further, it seems to me that the nominator is going for a bulk deletion -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Kansas Avenue Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lecompton Road Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-99 Wamego Bridge (2nd nomination) (a second nomination of an AFD already closed as "keep"), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-32 Turner Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morse Street Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/222nd Street Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maple Hill Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paxico Road Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highway 2 Bridge.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has no references and merely asserts that the bridge in question exists. There is no "inherent notability" for every bridge which someone states exists or once existed. Unless someone can find multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, deletion is the appropriate outcome. If multiple bridge articles have been nominated, perhaps that is a result of someone creating multiple articles about non-notable bridges, rather than a demonstration of inappropriate action by the nominator. Edison (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Also, half of the bridges in this bulk deletion are not highway bridges. –TC N7 JM 11:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I see Ks0stm has nominated a crapload of related bridge articles for deletion. Perhaps a better treatment could be had if KsOstm wants to be prepare an article on Crossings of the Kansas River, perhaps 20-40 hours would be sufficient to do that really well (ideally with a map listing by number all the bridges as well), then we can consider whether a few of these should redirect to that.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How does that help establish notability for this or the other bridges I nominated? I was not aware that nominating several for deletion or the existence of a Crossings of the Kansas River article were relevant to whether or not they are notable, which is the reason I nominated them for deletion. (Note that this is more towards the other nominations, and that I note your comment below was for this one). Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inviting you to write that article, it seems it would be a valuable addition to the project. I don't see you suggesting the content has no place on Wikipedia, just that you don't believe individual articles are appropriate for whatever reason. Its easy to serially nominate articles for deletion, of course.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know why that article would be notable, to be honest...it's a short river, not even the longest in Kansas. I wouldn't consider articles over Arkansas River or Smoky Hill River/Republican River or Verdigris River bridges to be notable...I'm not sure why I would find such an article for the Kansas River notable. It just seems almost like an excess of detail...Ninth Street, the main street in my hometown, has had a fair amount of local news coverage, but I still would consider an article about it to be excessive. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas River#Crossings might be suitable - provided the size didn't reach that necessating a WP:SPINOUT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In addition to my general Keep directly above, please note that I just spent some time working on this article. The history of the bridge is frequently reported on. I question whether the proper name should be "222nd Street Bridge" because I can't find sources calling it that, Eudora Bridge might be better, starting the article "The Eudora Bridge over the Kansas River ..." to avoid confusion. Perhaps the Kansas DOT has an official name someone can find.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following this discussion from afar, and I feel that I have to reply to this comment. "Eudora Bridge" wouldn't be any better of a name. Only one of the references added to the article uses a proper name for the bridge, #8 calls it the "Eudora Kaw River Bridge". If the article remains, that's probably the name that should be used. But the fact that the other seven articles can't be bothered to refer to the bridge by name indicates to me that it lacks notability.

Also, the fact that a local newspaper includes a historical tidbit whenever they cover a construction project doesn't really confirm notability to me either. I think that's pretty standard for any local newspaper and local bridge. -- 97.113.8.146 (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sufficent sources to establish (barely) notability for a crossing over a significant waterway. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Milowent's new sources clearly show notability. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing in article appears to reach WP:GNG. There's a paywalled The Hutchinson News article on the 1962 ice damage [1], and a 1917 paywalled mention or more from that same paper as well--this is assuming the predecessor bridge is in the article scope, of course. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.