Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knight's Bridge

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 speedy keep. nomination withdrawn DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knight's Bridge[edit]

Knight's Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I prodded this in February, saying "No indication of notability--ordinary bridge crossing an ordinary road like thousands in the state." The prod was contested with the reason that "I would think that bridges would be inherently notable". There is no guideline for the inherent notability of bridges. Also the contestor may have assumed the bridge was something like this, while what is actually at the site can be seen in this Street View. Performing my due diligence as nominator via Google is complicated by the road named after the bridge, but I cannot find any evidence that this structure passes WP:GNG. The previous wooden structure may have been notable [1], [2], but the current structure is not. Valfontis (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —Valfontis (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: like Valfontis said, this bridge blatantly fails WP:GNG. There isn't significant coverage in reliable sources, and even to the extent that the article needs original research just to provide basic information about the bridge. A Wikipedia article about a notable topic needs to have citations to reliable sources and no original research. Jsayre64 (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- per Valfontis' Google search linked above, the original 70-year-old covered bridge was clearly notable, and sourceable. I'm sure an Oregon-based editor could get hold of the books and journals listed there and write a decent stub, if not more. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm willing to withdraw my nomination if someone completely retools the article and proves by adding cited information that the former structure, a wooden covered bridge destroyed in 1947, passes GNG. Since right now the completely uncited article is about the current strip-of-asphalt bridge, my nomination still stands. Valfontis (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note also that content about a long-gone structure might be better merged into, say, the Molalla River article. Valfontis (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The current article, and basic research, says the current bridge probably isn't notable and the previous bridge probably isn't either. I suggest deletion with no bias against recreation of a well-sourced article. tedder (talk) 00:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace, which is to say, Delete and rewrite with content about the former bridge. I spent 8-10 minutes searching but could turn up nothing useful about the former bridge online. —EncMstr (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google book search for "Knight's Bridge" and "Oregon" shows ample results. [3] Its listed in Bridges in Oregon: List of Bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in Oregon [4]. I guess someone should update the article List of bridges on the National Register of Historic Places in Oregon. Anyway, any site that is considered historical on the National Register is clearly notable. Dream Focus 03:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source you have showing it on the NRHP is not reliable; it's just a copy of a wikipedia entry I think. You need to find a better one.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Actually, we keep that list very up to date. And as an amateur architectural historian, I specialize in NRHP articles so I would never nominate an NRHP article for deletion. Look again--that book you found is a compilation of Wikipedia articles about bridges with a misleading title. See Books LLC. As for the Google Books search I did in my nomination that you reiterated, a list of hits does not prove something is notable, though I admit the former bridge mentioned in the 10 hits that appear to be good ones (the rest are false positives or more of those scraped content books), might be notable. However, the current article is about a newer bridge in a nearby location, that does not appear to have any Google hits at all. I'd be happy to see some. Valfontis (talk) 04:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lacks the significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources needed to pass the GNG. I'll happily change my opinion should acceptable sources come up. Yaksar (let's chat) 04:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the older bridge does show notability, it should probably be created at this title.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since there is agreement the historical bridge was notable, and the article was mostly about it anyway, with just one sentence about the current one, I have edited the article to be primarily about the historical one. [5] Thus the problem is solved. Dream Focus 23:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, no, I don't think that's how it works. First off, you didn't really make it about the original there. Second of all, the discussion seems to be trending towards including it in one of the two articles Valfontis suggested.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a good start, but the notability issues (see WP:GNG) have not been addressed yet. And anyway, I don't see a clear consensus about the notability of the old bridge, which is not what this AfD is about, but I'll let the closing admin judge that. Valfontis (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dream Focus' improvements. There appears to be a whole chapter about this bridge in this book and more coverage in this book that even the visible snippet shows more than a "passing mention." This meets WP:GNG better than a lot of similar topics I've come across.--Oakshade (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually both of those are journals, not books. I'm not getting the sense that there's an entire chapter devoted to this subject in the Oregon Historical Quarterly Vol. 61, No. 2 (the book cited in the article is actually a reprint of this material), since "A Century of Oregon Covered Bridges" is a chapter within the journal. How do you get that sense? I think these are just passing mentions, but I suppose since no one else appears to be interested in going to the library, I may just do so today and find out. Valfontis (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, a "journal", provided there is editorial oversight as there is Oregon Historical Quarterly is a reliable source per WP:SOURCES. The scope of the coverage is well beyond a "passing mention" even by the previews. --Oakshade (talk) 23:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm well aware OHQ is a reliable source. Highly reliable. I was just clarifying that the hits mentioned weren't in books. It was not a comparison of the relative reliability of books vs. journals. I'm still not seeing more than a passing mention though--I don't know how you're getting that from the snippets, but I'll let you know what I find later this weekend. Cheers. Valfontis (talk) 23:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess we disagree. Even just from the snippets I've learned that the original Knights Bridge was built in 1876 to replace the old Jocelyn Bridge, was contracted to A. S. Miller & Sons, condemned to vehicular traffic as it was replaced in 1940 and it was preserved as a foot bridge until it was demolished in 1946. I know all of this from the just the sources previews. I admit I'm a great researcher, but even I couldn't get all of this information if the bridge was simply a "passing mention" in a source. And I just noticed that this source literally calls it "notable." --Oakshade (talk) 02:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point, the topic of the article has changed completely, and so it's a bit more confusing. It seems, however, that at the very least we'd want this to be merged, not deleted, so maybe we should close this discussion and start a merge discussion on the talk page?--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It didn't change. The information about both bridges was there at the time it was nominated for deletion. [6] No need to merge if there is proof its notable enough to stand on its own. Dream Focus 19:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately my two lengthy replies were munged by an ec and since I'm at the library and have to get off the computer, I'll just say--I'm withdrawing my nomination. More later, Valfontis (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Knight%27s_Bridge&oldid=1137973984"