Talk:Tickle Cock Bridge

Notability
This article is about a pedestrian underpass. It certainly has an amusing name, but how is it notable? Do we have any other articles on pedestrian underpasses? Category:Pedestrian underpasses is sadly empy, but there is Subway (underpass), Category:Pedestrian crossings and Category:Pedestrian infrastructure.

I am tempted to take it to AfD, but perhaps someone could show me some convincing sources to establish notability and save us all the bother. -- Jttw (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It has been featured in trade magazines, the national and local UK press, and was the subject of a Channel 4 TV programme, all of which can be easily seen in the References section. The article clearly meets the WP:Notability guidelines in that the sources used provide significant coverage, they are reliable, and they are secondary sources independent of the subject. That you don't like articles on underpasses is neither here nor there. I don't like articles on manga characters.


 * "That other stuff doesn't exist" isn't an argument for deletion. Perhaps that other stuff ought to exist. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Jttw, I see you have very few edits on Wiki. The "convincing sources to establish notability", per WP:NN, are listed in the article.  And no one cares about Categories, nor are they a measure of notability.  And yes, we have plenty of similar, notable articles.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There is lots of press coverage, no doubt because journalists can't resist being able to write about "Tickle Cock Bridge". The fact that it the Daily Mail finds it titillating does not make it notable.


 * Perhaps the strongest point is the Channel 4 documentary, although seems to focus on this underpass as a symbol for the regeneration of Castleford. At the end of the day, this is an insignificant pedestrian route under a railway line.  Is a Channel 4 documentary sufficient on its own to establish notability?  Perhaps SandyGeorgia could point me towards some similar articles and I will go away. -- Jttw (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is any chance of you ever going away Mattisse. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Just happened on this discussion. This article appears to be on a notable subject to me--Milowent (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Now it is clear I am not Mattisse - I had hoped that my comments would be given due respect irrespective of their source, but whatever; clearly the hunting of fox-in-socks (or is that socks as fox?) beats collaboration; but hat-eating may now commence - can someone please suggest some similar articles to address my concerns.

Yes, there is press coverage, but seems to be wholly or mainly about the name rather than about the underpass itself. I think there may be a confusion here between things that are verifiable (by reference to reliable sources) and things that are notable. As WP:NN indicates, the existence of reliable source is a necessary but not sufficient condition for notability.

As it happens, I am not a great fan on manga articles in most cases either, but I think they are often collected together into (more justifiable) list of characters. I can see that some of the the content here would fit into an article on Castleford, or an article on the regeneration project, or even on the TV programme, but the bridge itself is just a concrete underpass. There must be thousands of similarly mundane structures in the UK, most of which are not remotely notable. What makes this different?

Looking at the sources used, we have Channel 4, who were involved in commissioning the project and then making a TV programme about it, so arguably not completely independent; the OED on "cock"; Holt and Humphries on names reflecting function and slang; and the Yorkshire Post, the Daily Mail and the Telegraph on the name (I can imagine the journalists chuckling over their tea - "Tickle Cock? Ho ho."  Not notable.). There is just one reference to one article in one magazine actually about the underpass.

But I have found a few other sources that may be relevant:
 * a description of the "Castleford Regeneration Project" by Mace Group, who Channel 4 and Wakefield Council commissioned to provide "project and programme management support"
 * discussion of the scheme in an article in The Times prompted by the Channel 4 documentary in 2008 - the underpass is one of "seven other projects, large and small", and an paragraph saying "The smaller projects are just as influential. The new underpass beneath Tickle Cott Bridge cost only a couple of hundred thousand pounds, but for that, DSDHA delivered a piece of sophisticated concrete geometry, which, says the architect Deborah Saunt, “is about cheering up those spots planning usually forgets about”."
 * from the Arts Council, it seems that Martin Richman was brought in to work on the lighting scheme
 * an online source suggests he also did the wall treatment and gives a timeline
 * the architects give some images and text similar to that provided by the Channel 4 reference
 * a PDF about Carlos Garaicoa's "The Observatory"

These sources contain material about the bridge, rather than its name, and some may be worthy of inclusion. Perhaps another category, such as Category:Pedestrian infrastructure, could also be added. I will leave it to others to decide.

I could just be persuaded that this is a public artwork, with its "angular seating shelter" facing the south-west to catch the evening sun and the "tactile red flock lining" on the walls (both points not currently mentioned). But notability still seems a bit thin to me. -- Jttw (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Then I guess you have two choices: add whatever you feel is missing or take it to AfD. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Or they could continue to yank everyone's chain. No one cares.--Milowent (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation, Malleus Fatuorum. I had some time today, so I have made a few changes to incorporate some of the material above. No doubt we can discuss any concerns you may have in due course. -- Jttw (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a bridge
I think the category Pedestrian crossing is misleading. It's a bridge that takes the railway over a footpath. Does it have to have spurious categories attached to it? --J3Mrs (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Unclear
It's called TC Bridge, and there's mention of a replacement bridge, but all the text seems to talk about is an underpass, which is completely different from a bridge. Uh? I don't follow it at all. Please expand on the bridge bit - was it originally a bridge and then replaced with another bridge and then replaced with the underpass? But if so, how can this be? A bridge goes over, an underpass goes under. I'm lost! 86.168.132.89 (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know how the UK does it, but in Canada, 'overpass' and 'underpass' are named from the railroad's pov. After all, the railroads were first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.103 (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment
Talk:Tickle Cock Bridge/GA2