Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maple Hill 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. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maple Hill 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)} 22:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable bridge on non-notable road. Dough 48 72 23:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kansas River in a section on "crossings", unless sources are found (many rivers already have such lists of the crossings). --Colapeninsula (talk) 23:28, 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 - Again, not a highway bridge. Not notable. –TC N7 JM 11:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While "every bridge in the state" need not have an article, every bridge over a significant waterway, which the Kansas River is, is likely notable. References: [1], [2], [3], [4], ~~[5]~~, ~~[6]~~, [7]. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources two and three are trivial coverage, sources four and seven are the same story, and sources five and six are from Ohio, nowhere near the Kansas River. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 10:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Stupid bridges having the same name in different states! That's why I shouldn't try to find sources at 6am... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/222nd Street Bridge.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:13, 4 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 01:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The Bushranger's sources get this one past the GNG, barely. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:03, 8 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.