Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bridges in Singapore


 * 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 23:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

List of bridges in Singapore
WP is not an arbitrary list of pages that do not exist.
 * Delete as nom. &mdash; RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 14:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Lists in wikipedia need not be composed only of items each with their own articles.--Huaiwei 15:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. We could use more coverage of Singapore-related topics (per WP:CSB), and the red links on the list will encourage future expansion. I would prefer a restriction to bridges that are notable in some fashion, however. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - you bring up a very good point - how many of these non-existent links will then be up for AfD for being non-notable bridges? &mdash; RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 20:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. And how many of these bridges are non-notable according to your knowledge? While the flyovers are usually non-notable, practically every bridge spanning the Singapore River are considered architectural heritage icons locally. Should all of these be deleted just because of non-notable flyovers? As for the flyovers, precisely they are non-notable, that a list is the most viable location to talk about them collectively. You dont just flag lists for deletion for a whole lot of red links. Remove those links if you must instead of going the easy way out.--Huaiwei 01:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Seems completely pointless and not notable. Not to mention I have never seen so many red links in an article, and those pages are not likely to ever be created. xompanthy 19:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. Folks, this violates black-letter policy here.  "Wikipedia articles are not ... mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles."  I see no article here; there is no basis whatsoever for voting to keep on this one. RGTraynor 19:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Huaiwei's and Hit bull, win steak's comments. Allisonmontgomery69 23:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Also no notability stated, implied, or even attempted.  Tychocat 08:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and turn it into a category. If the bridge is of sufficient note to have an article, it can be included via category.  If it isn't, then it doesn't show up in the category. -- Whpq 17:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The said category already exists, and no, it dosent tell you which river they span, nor what type of bridge they are unless you are proposing subcategories for all variations.--Huaiwei 14:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Why is this detail needed? If one goes to the individual articles, all of the information about which river, and structure type would be available.  If the number of bridges in Singapore are so numerous as to need subcategories, then by all means go ahead and create them. -- Whpq 14:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. And why should that detail be unrequired? What else does a bridge do? Sure, anyone can go to specific pages for those details, but you are assuming wikipedia cannot do summarisation for cross-comparison so much so that all details can only appear in their respective articles? I see lots of assumptions there on expected user behavior and needs, and I am not so sure if I am agreeable to all. So, all users would prefer going to every single article in Category:Bridges in Norway to find out their Norwegian names, instead of seeing them all in List of bridges in Norway? Or visit all articles in Category:Bridges in Montreal just to know which rivers they span, instead of in List of bridges in Montreal?--Huaiwei 16:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The flyovers are probably pushing it, but the bridges over rivers are certainly all "notable" enough. This should be kept, just like list of crossings of the Ohio River and other similar articles. --SPUI (T - C) 23:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep this "structured list to assist with the organisation of articles". Kappa 23:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. *drew 12:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. While I would normally give it the benefit of the doubt, I do notice this particular editor has more often than not voted "delete" on Singapore-related RFDs with no better explanation than "per nom".--Huaiwei 14:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I do not see how the fact that this editor thinks the nominator's reasoning is sound calls this editor into question. --Kuzaar-T-C- 13:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep; useful list; many such lists exist in WP. --Vsion 13:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, we have such lists like List of bridges in the United Kingdom and List of bridges in Australia, this is an encyclopedic list, the bridges are notable and articles will be written. --Ter e nce Ong (Chat 11:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, the list appears to be encyclopedic, and I'm sure many of the bridges are notable. --Kuzaar-T-C- 13:39, 3 August 2006 (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.