Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridges in film


 * 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 delete. Although the page is well written and some may argue, well sourced, the significance of such an article is questionable. Rudget . 16:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Bridges in film

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unencyclopedic trivia. No more meaningful than Streets in film or Airports in film. Corvus cornix talk  22:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia articles should be be about topics that are the subject of reliable published sources, not merely instances of a particular phenomenon deemed notable or interesting by editors. As it is, the article fails the notability guideline. Admittedly, it's more selective than many "cultural references to X" articles, and I'd be willing to reconsider my opinion if sources could be found that generalise about "bridges in film" in, say, the way the lead does. EALacey (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep (for now) - I agree with EALacey, however, the lack of WP:RS or something that is unattributed does not mean it cannot be, or that sources do not exist. I'm confident that the article passes WP:NOTE for these reasons. Furthermore, trivia is generally only shunned if it's a miscellaneous obtrusive list. They are discouraged, not reasons for deletion.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 22:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete/merge Most of what is here is about bridges that are notable in their own right and have their own articles. A mention of important film appearances in those articles seems more appropriate and useful to the reader. Beeblbrox (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete/merge. Films about bridges, perhaps. But films with bridges in them? No way. Any notable appearances of real-world bridges in films should be noted in the articles of those bridges, but we don't need an article that is basically just a loose collection of trivia. PC78 (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh dear god, delete - yet another in a horrifying number of "this one time in this one film there was this thing" articles that have polluted Wikipedia for far too long. The fact that a bridge appears in a film does not merit encyclopedic attention. Otto4711 (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Settings of films are major elements of their creativity and significance, and bringing them together in an appropriate article is appropriate. they should also be mentioned in the articles about the individual bridges. Beeblbrox is right about that. The use of a notable set of these is fiction is notable. Every one of these can be sourced. DGG (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the fact that a film company put in a shot of one bridge versus another bridge or whatever is not significant, especially if there aren't reliable sources that specifically discuss the choice of setting. Otto4711 (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, but only the ones where bridges are key elements, e.g. The Bridge on the River Kwai, The Bridge of San Luis Rey, For Whom the Bell Tolls, Bataan, Lloyd Bridges (okay, maybe not that last one). Clarityfiend (talk) 06:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * comment I think the above remark reveals the core problem with this type of article. In X-men The Last Stand you couldn't tell the story without the Golden Gate bridge, it's practically part of the cast. In many of the other films, the bridge is simply part of the backdrop, used to establish that we are looking at San Francisco. In a contemporary film, it could just as easily be the TransAmerica Pyramid. Deciding here which of these films are in some way about the bridge and which use it simply to establish a location would seem to be original research. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - so, there are some films that have bridges in them. There seems to be no connection whatsoever between them, making this a perfect example of a list of indiscriminate information. - fchd (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2008 (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.