Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-32 Turner 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.  MBisanz  talk 23:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

K-32 Turner Bridge

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Bridge appears to fail the GNG. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable bridge.  Dough 48  72  23:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep We've gone through this before. See Articles for deletion/K-99 Wamego Bridge for an example of a previous AFD.  Bridge articles on highways normally end up being kept as stubs simply because they eventually are proven to pass the general notability guideline through offline sources, which takes more time.  Further, it seems to me that the nominator is going for a bulk deletion -- see Articles for deletion/North Kansas Avenue Bridge, Articles for deletion/Lecompton Road Bridge, Articles for deletion/K-99 Wamego Bridge (2nd nomination) (a second nomination of an AFD already closed as "keep"), Articles for deletion/K-32 Turner Bridge, Articles for deletion/Morse Street Bridge, Articles for deletion/222nd Street Bridge, Articles for deletion/Maple Hill Bridge, Articles for deletion/Paxico Road Bridge, Articles for deletion/Highway 2 Bridge.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Highway bridges are not inherently notable. If there are refs to satisfy WP:N, they should be provided. Edison (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not every single bridge in the state of Kansas needs a page. – TC N7  JM  10:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Nobody is arguing that there should be. There probably should be an article on every bridge over the Kansas River, though, as it is a significant waterway. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The Kansas River is a significant waterway, yes, but not every bridge over it is significant or has wide enough coverage to be notable. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 10:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per my comment at Articles for deletion/222nd Street Bridge.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The bridge does seem to have generated a fair amount of news coverage; see here, here, and here, though sadly all 3 stories are behind a paywall. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 21:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and Move Keep per the above statement and sources, but the common name of the bridge is the Turner Bridge and not the K-32 Turner Bridge Sawblade5 (talk to me undefined my wiki life) 17:51, 12 February 2013 (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.