Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-99 Wamego 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. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

K-99 Wamego Bridge

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


 * I do not see the importance of this bridge. If it was something like the Golden Gate Bridge, or the Manhattan Bridge, I would understand.keystoneridin! (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this article serves as much importance as K-7 Bridge, 222nd Street Bridge and the Interstate 70 Bridges. Plus, it expands the Crossings of the Kansas River category. Bhall87 (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- ( X!  ·  talk )  · @900  · 20:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions.  -- ( X!  ·  talk )  · @900  · 20:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep if expanded, otherwise merge to K-99 (Kansas highway) as there is not presently enough for a standalone article. Thryduulf (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Articles such as this one arise from having succession boxes for bridges on rivers. I have grave doubts as to their merits, but if we delete it, some one will one day re-create it, and perhaps worse.  Stubify.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep and expand. From the photos on the web it's a quite substantial & apparently important bridge over a major river, and warrants a proper article. But there is no justification making stub articles as weak as this one. DGG (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * keep needs expanded, yes... but there is no deadline on Wikipedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:55, 7 August 2009 (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.