Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridge 11


 * 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The result was   nomination withdrawn due to sourcing improvement and a stronger notability claim. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Bridge 11

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completely unsourced article about a bridge, which makes no real assertion of notability — as written, it just asserts that the structure exists. Thousands upon thousands of other bridges exist in the world without being notable enough to warrant encyclopedias about them — while "more notable than the norm" exceptions certainly and obviously do exist, no reliable source coverage has been shown here to demonstrate that this bridge should be considered one of them. (See also related Articles for deletion/Dain City Railroad Bridge.) Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. The bridge is historic. The bridge was the site of the groundbreaking for the Welland Canal; see this page about the bridge and this photo of the historic marker. Here is another page written specifically about the bridge. The economic and social impact of this bridge and the canal are discussed in this book. The lack of notable information compiled to date for the WP particle does not mean that this bridge, which is over 80 years old, is not notable. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, the onus is on the article to properly substantiate and reliably source the topic's notability right off the top. An article which just asserts that the topic exists, and provides no demonstration of notability at all, is not entitled to stick around just because it might be improvable — it doesn't have to be an FA class article right off the top by any means, but it does have to at least contain a basic claim of notability, and one or two reliable sources to demonstrate the accuracy of that claim of notability, right from the very moment that the article exists at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please explain WP:NEXIST which states "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article." Why doesn't that apply here? - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 05:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Because the article isn't even saying anything about the bridge that would constitute a claim of notability — mere existence is not the same thing. There is a difference between an inadequately sourced article that at least provides a reason why its topic would be considered notable, and one which contains neither sourcing nor any actual claim of notability. Bearcat (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, I need some explanation to understand your position. It seems that you are saying the opposite of WP:ARTN, which says "Article content does not determine notability." Also, you must understand that people have different perspectives. From my perspective, the statement in the nominated version of the article that this a movable bridge built in 1930 is enough to constitute a claim of notability. A two-hundred foot span is nothing today, but in the thirties it was still quite an engineering accomplishment. Movable bridges are still quite scarce and are being removed faster than being built these days. Add in the fact that the bridge has been kept operational for eighty-plus years and yes, the subject is notable. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Any article on Wikipedia always has to contain at least a basic explanation of why the topic is or should be considered eligible for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Once that's done, then "article content does not determine notability" kicks in, in the sense that once basic notability has been properly covered off we can no longer delete an article just for failing to be better and more substantial than it already is — but that statement does not mean that anyone can just create an article which just asserts that its topic exists, and then use ARTN as an exemption from having to clarify why an encyclopedia should actually bother documenting its existence. For example, "The Flapjack Diner is a restaurant in Palookaville, the end, no sources" would not get to claim keepability because ARTN. It's certainly still possible that such an article could be salvaged with better sources — and I'm now going to withdraw this nomination since improved sourcing and a better claim of notability has now been shown here — but ARTN does not constitute a "get out of AFD free" card for an article if there isn't at least a basic and sourced claim of notability, as opposed to mere existence, in the article. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is a stub with no references, but it was created only a week ago by a new editor. The bridge seems to be notable, sources already cited and The Welland Canals and Their Communities, Engineering Journal, Volume 20 and Marine Investigation Report M01C0054 provide enough information for an article. Peter James (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2015 (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.