Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hackensack Drawbridge


 * 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. Michig (talk) 06:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

HD Draw

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable demolished bridge from 66 years ago. NYTimes reference does not exist mentions the bridge but does not confer notability, and there is no significant coverage or other reliable sources. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The New York Times article certainly does exist, and there is another reliable source cited, so that's two falsehoods in the nomination already. I don't have access to the full text of either of them so I can't comment on the significance of coverage. I'm surprised that the nominator is able to know that there is no significant coverage without being able to find the sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The NYTimes reference did not load properly, so that was a mistake. However, I read it, and the article was about a ship crash, not the bridge itself.  The coverage from that article certainly does not confer notability for the bridge, and it is not notable.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you read the whole article, or just the few words freely available online? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The whole article, as I said. --  Wikipedical (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you find it somewhere online? I'd be interested in reading it myself. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a NYTimes subscription, which anyone can purchase. --  Wikipedical (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete needs more than a trivial mention to meet the WP:GNG. No reliable third party sources offering significant coverage. Vcessayist (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - is it listed as any other name than "HD Draw," or is HD short for something? I suspect we can find more on it. - Theornamentalist (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Djflem (talk) 10:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have ny times access and can look elsewhere for sources as well. Would be good know when it was built to avoid confusion with other possible structures.--Milowent • hasspoken  01:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This is now a very well documented article with 13 inline citations and five other sources, with explanations of its significance and demise by a collision with a coal steamer in 1946. --DThomsen8 (talk) 10:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep As important part the of rail infrastructure for major RR and the object of a major maritime accident and district court case, the bridge more than satisfies notability as seen in below:
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is clearly a notable bridge from the many reliable book and newspaper references. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - satisfies GNG. - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Easily satisfies our guidelines. What does it being "from 66 years ago" have to do with notability? --Oakshade (talk) 01:07, 13 October 2012 (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.