Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lecompton Road 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 01:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Lecompton Road Bridge

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Bridge appears to fail the GNG; not covered non-trivially in multiple reliable sources. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not an important bridge.  Dough 48  72  23:11, 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 - The page looks misnamed even if we were to keep, based on the title of the source. – TC N7  JM  10:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Being misnamed is not a reason to delete. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That wasn't my reason for deletion, that was just a comment. – TC N7  JM  13:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Then what is your reason to delete? WP:NOREASON is not a reason.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Per nom. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. – TC N7  JM  22:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - The listed reference/article by the Lecompton Historical Society is enough notability for me. This bridge has shaped the community around it, and the refrence shows how. Let's get that into the article. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * One source does not establish that it is a notable bridge...per the GNG, it needs coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. This is part of the reason that exists.  Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 23:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Additional sources:, - The Bushranger One ping only 04:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per my comment at Articles for deletion/222nd Street Bridge.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per PennySpender1983 and the additional sources found. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:01, 6 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.