Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cockbridge


 * 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. I've looked at all of these bridge nominations that remain in "old discussions", and I'm closing them all as keep. A list, or merge, is for the talkpages. Please see my talk if you have any questions. Keeper  |   76   |   Disclaimer  19:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Cockbridge

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

An unimportant bridge in Ljubljana. Eleassar my talk 12:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep - all these stub articles were only created 4 days ago. It's a bit premature to decide they'll never be improved. - Denimadept (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * To expand on what I think is going on here, we need more information about each of these bridges in their articles. WHAT are these bridges?
 * How long are they
 * What sort of construction are they?
 * arch
 * suspension
 * cantilever
 * whatever
 * When where they built?
 * Who built them?
 * Why were they built?
 * What precedes them (any previous bridges on that site? Maybe a ferry?)
 * What context are they in? Any history?  Battles or other events?
 * What kind of effort went into them?
 * Provide a picture! Or several!
 * What are their coordinates (though I like to do that one! :-D)?
 * What makes them worth an article?
 * It's not their location that's a problem; see Nový Most for a good example in the same area, and the Danube River bridges are currently the subjects of a list in progress. The more you can put into an article, the more references, the more data in general, the less susceptible to an AfD the article is. - Denimadept (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The fundamental question is: what makes this bridge worth an article? I'm from Ljubljana, know it well, and think nothing makes it. Anyone is welcome to prove otherwise. --Eleassar my talk 12:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Simply put, fails reliable sources, notability and verifiable.  The onus is on the article to meet guidelines and not for editors to expect that it meets the guidelines.  Then delete the template or replace it with one that does not link to the deleted bridge articles.  Existence is not the same as notability.  Vegaswikian (talk) 02:25, 30 March 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.