Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List Of Bridges Constructed Between 1847 and 1892


 * 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 d e lete. east. 718 at 00:00, December 29, 2007

List Of Bridges Constructed Between 1847 and 1892

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Was AFD'ed after creator removed speedy tag. Wikipedia is not indescriminate info, etc. Why these year spans? Not enough data to merge with anything. Pharmboy (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure if this is the place to discuss this, but the years hence discussed are years when our great great grandparents (in my opinion the best generation) used grade a steel and solid constructing techniques that still stand today.Every Generation Has Its Share Of Cocky Kids (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the years are intended to reflect the railway bridge building era of the industrial revolution. -- neon white user page talk 18:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete. The one item on the list is a non-notable joke article. List serves no purpose and has no parameters: bridges constructed where, anywhere in the world? In your hometown? Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  15:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I had only the United States in mind, and I should have clarified that. The bridge article linked to it is a little informal, but it's only a rough draft.Every Generation Has Its Share Of Cocky Kids (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Completely arbitrary time period except to its creator. Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of info, with a touch of soapbox or WP:POV (take your pick) thrown in. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete One so far? No need to research this one any further.  Mandsford (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually there are many. If you look here- http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bridge+constructed+in+1847&btnG=Search  and here- http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bridge+constructed+in+1848&btnG=Search  for example, you will find numerous bridges mentioned. It's a little tedious, but that's what I plan to do later on today when I research and update the article.Every Generation Has Its Share Of Cocky Kids (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Such articles already exist with more "natural" time periods. --Blanchardb- Me MyEars MyMouth -timed 17:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Clarityfiend. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I think it's highly inappropriate to request deletion on an article 15 minutes after it has been created. You have to give an articles time to actually be created as is said on the main afd page Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If you can fix the article through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. I'm sure it was posted in good faith but i request this be withdrawn until a later date. -- neon white user page talk 18:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Question to Neon white:: Even if the article were given plenty of time to mature, doesn't the title fatally compromise it? I mean, if this article is OK then why not Ships launched between 1912 and 1975 or Television stations opened when there is an 'R' in the month? Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  18:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind me chiming in again, allow me to offer the solution of seperate articles covering appropriate concepts such as Bridges Constructed in 1875, Bridges Constructed in 1890, etc. If I'm really feeling ambitious, I can always cover other years not in my original timespan such as Bridges Constructed in 1922, Bridges Constructed in 1975, etc. I can also cover bridges in the planning stages if you like. This will obviously be a long term project, so please be patient.Every Generation Has Its Share Of Cocky Kids (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Normally, that would be something for a category, not an article, and individual articles would be for each bridge that itself was notable. As it is, the article is fatally flawed.  Pharmboy (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If it is covering a notable period in bridge building and engineering and some context is added to assert why this period is particularly notable, i don't see why it isn't encyclopedic. Individual articles would be a mess. As long as it isn't simply a list and sourced info about the bridges are added then it could well become a good article. -- neon white user page talk 00:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why 1847 and 1892? Why not 1846 and 1893?  Or 1848 and 1892?  That makes it arbatrary, which is the first fatal issue.  Unless you can cite and explain why those two years in particular are what matter, the title is automatically fatally flawed, regardless of content.  Next is the fact that no assertion of what makes bridges made between these year particularly notable, which is the second fatal fault.  We can't read someone's mind and it isn't clear why these two fatal flaws should be 'overlooked'.  Pharmboy (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete — doesn't make sense. Just write articles about individual bridges (if notable—and, by the way, not all bridges are in the U.S. of A.), then create appropriate categories (if there's enough stuff to populate them).  Turgidson (talk) 04:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete -- this list, and the one bridge listed there, seem to have been created only as a joke. We already have Category:Bridges completed in the 1840s, Category:Bridges completed in the 1850s, and so on through Category:Bridges completed in the 1890s, so why do we need a list that's highly incomplete?  It doesn't even list classics like the Stone Arch Bridge, Starrucca Viaduct, Eads Bridge, and John A. Roebling Suspension Bridge.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 05:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. See WP:NOT.  No rationale is given for why the years 1847 and 1892 is range for this article.  If a rationale is given that is verifiable, then I'd say keep.  Until that happens, I have to go with delete.  --Son (talk) 00:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Greswik (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2007 (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.