Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John O'Connell 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. Tone 06:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

John O'Connell Bridge

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable bridge in Alaska. The four references in the article are: 1.) Bridgehunter, a user-generated database. 2.) Structurae, a user-generated database. 3.) An about.com link that redirects to a travel site, I'm assuming domain squatted. About.com was not/is not a reliable source.  4.) A WP:SPS personal website. A further WP:BEFORE search turns up this which contains a total of three sentences about this bridge. A brief description as part of the identifier for a Library of Congress image. A new piece that only mentions this bridge stating that someone jumped off it and drownded. Beyond that, I'm mostly finding image sites and blogs. It was the first cable-stayed girder spanned bridge in the US, but that very specific qualification does not overcome the WP:GEOFEAT and WP:GNG failures. WP:ITSINTERESTING, but it's not notable. Hog Farm Bacon 20:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 20:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 20:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 20:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep: - this bridge replaced a ferry service, and it has a claim to fame as the first vehicular cable-stayed girder spanned bridge in the USA. So an architectural reason to keep this.  --Whiteguru (talk) 11:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. The best thing we can do for this article is not to delete it, but to find better references for it. I suggest either Federal or Alaska DOT pages, or newspaper archives. Nothingofwater (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Whiteguru. This nomination suggests that significance is not a basis for notability, only some other editor's choice of sourcing.  If that's truly the case, I'll be looking forward to seeing all the forthcoming AFDs on the untold thousands (or even millions) of articles which fit that criteria. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  21:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * - Can you provide any reliable sources that discuss this bridge indepth? That's what WP:GNG requires.  All I'm seeing so far is WP:ITSIMPORTANT arguments.  Determining significance based on sourcing is kinda what the general notability guideline is. Hog Farm Bacon 22:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added references from Alaska DOT and from the Library of Congress. They qualify as reliable. We should probably look into removing some of the less-reliable references as well. Nothingofwater (talk) 15:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep,It is a unique bridge. It can stay as a stay alone article although it needs more material about the history and the building of the bridge. Alex-h (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2020 (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.