Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gibbs Street Pedestrian Bridge


 * 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. Courcelles 00:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Gibbs Street Pedestrian Bridge

 * – ( View AfD View log )

It's a Ped bridge, people. There are thousands of them across freeways. Most of them aren't notable. This one isn't either  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  04:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions.  — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: The notability guideline does not consider how many there are or what type of object it is, but by topics that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time.  While the bridge was in planning and before approval, there were seven reliable sources in the article.  Now that construction is underway, there are a full dozen.  The bridge is handily notable enough for the article to remain. —EncMstr (talk) 06:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - true it is just a ped bridge, but I prefer policy/guideline based arguments, and this clearly passes the WP:GNG. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Twelve reliable sources is certainly enough to justify the notability of this bridge. Jsayre64   (talk)  12:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - for the reasons given above by others. SJ Morg (talk) 13:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Appears to pass WP:GNG with significant coverage (7 stories/news releases), in multiple independent reliable sources (3 in the Oregonian, 1 each for OHSU, DJC, SWCC, & the Trib) in addition to the several non-independent cites sourced to the City of Portland, which are only non-independent because of the nature of the subject and can't be seen as self-promotion or advertising. Valfontis (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2011 (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.