Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable bridges


 * 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 merge and redirect to List of bridges. The fundamental problem with this list is that there is no criteria for inclusion. A notable bridge in WP generally means one having an article. This list is a selection of bridges having articles but based not on an objective criterion but on personal opinion. The merge has been mostly carried out but some work remains, particularly on those bridges that are subject to country lists, the UK and US bridges for example. I have left the history accessible to enable interested editors to check and complete the merge. TerriersFan 23:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

List of notable bridges
Page is a directory in violation of WP:NOT Sawblade05 01:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't think this article exists for the purpose of travel information - it's a list of obviously connected notable subjects.  Citi Cat   ♫ 03:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with List of bridges. The pictures and descriptions would add value to the list in the other article.  No sense in having two articles covering almost precisely the same territory.  -- DRT  ïllberġ Talk 03:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And it definitely isn't a directory. -- DRT  ïllberġ Talk 03:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep this one. I'm almost thinking that the list of notable bridges is more useful than List of bridges (an entire list worldwide).  Anything that claims to be a list of all bridges would have to include the bridge that Minnesota State Highway 100 takes over Minnehaha Creek, for example, but that bridge isn't notable.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 03:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a common misconception, it's like saying that List of people from New York would have to include everyone from New York, so the list would contain millions of names. Only notable names should be added to lists. If a bridge is notable enough for an article, even if one doesn't exist yet, it should be added to List of bridges. Saikokira 03:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy redirect to List of bridges. And can people stop using the word "notable" in list names? Every bridge named in List of bridges should already be notable or it shouldn't be there. There is no distinction in lists. Saikokira 03:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. But if there is good info in this list that's not in the other one, it should be merge and redirect  Citi Cat   ♫ 04:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've merged everything from this list to List of bridges, apart from details that wouldn't be added to List of bridges anyway such as UK and US bridges which have their own lists. Saikokira 05:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete List of bridges is sufficient.  The bridges on there (excluding red links) are just as notable as the ones mentioned in here Corpx
 * Merge That's already been done, so unless it's undone, a deletion isn't possible. We have to redirect to preserve attributions history.--Chaser - T 05:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge but naming is a problem, when articles like this dont have the word "notable", such is objected toalso. What matters is to have them in one article, and keep it. DGG (talk) 05:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Adds nothing to what List of bridges already has. There's also the subjective criteria of a "notable bridge". Spellcast 08:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * delete. This information should all be in List of bridges. Why? Because all the content in List of bridges must already be notable. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge. I personally would prefer to read this list, rather than List of bridges, because each bridge has an interesting (and unknown to me) fact written next to it, whereas the main List of Bridges has so many countries, and many bridges listed have no info about them. I personally enjoy reading interesting trivia facts like this list gives, but I also don't believe in cluttering up Wikipedia with redundant information found elsewhere. I think that at the very least, some of this information is needed on the main List of Bridges page, (for instance, this page has "Hartland Bridge - Hartland, New Brunswick, Canada, world's longest covered bridge", and the main list redirects to Bridges in Canada, but the entry there does not note that it is the world's longest covered bridge). This is why this list would be useful to me: If I want to learn trivia about bridges, but had no idea what country "notable" bridges were in, I would have to sift through a whole bunch of pages to find items with neat trivia, and even then, as seen with Hartland, the interesting fact isn't mentioned. I'd rather keep the list, perhaps rename to "Record holding bridges" (or some such) and list only those bridges with records of note. (Longest, tallest, oldest, etc.) Ariel ♥ Gold 22:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I would just like to add, that I consider this type of list one of the "Treasures" of Wikipedia (my term). This is something that I would never know to look for, but when I run across it in the "see also" links, I'll read the entire thing, straight through, and learn a whole bunch of interesting facts. I would never be able to do this by sifting through the huge list of bridges, individual country lists, nor would I have the patience to do so. I think I would prefer to see this list kept as is, but do understand the premises behind merging it. I just hope that the interesting trivia is not lost in doing so. Ariel ♥ Gold 23:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - useful reference for academic purposes. WP:NOT should not be misinterpreted as "if items A and B are part of a set of items C, then A, B, and C are not appropriate for Wikipedia." We have lists for a reason. --xDanielx Talk 23:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Goes beyond the list of blue-links, and explains the notability of each bridge. Mandsford 00:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I think this article should be renamed to "List of Famous Bridges", and the lead should be expanded to have a clear criteria of famousness, but I think a smaller, separate list of famous bridges and a larger list of notable but not-as-famous bridges is useful for navigation, as per WP:LIST. --Phirazo 03:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant to List of bridges. If it isn't notable, it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 21:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.  -- Pax:Vobiscum 21:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.  -- Pax:Vobiscum 21:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per xDanielx and mandsford. Mathmo Talk 04:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: One way to have "a smaller, separate list of famous bridges and a larger list of notable but not-as-famous bridges" is to put the famous ones at list of bridges and the less famous ones in list of bridges by country. Kappa 05:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent suggestion Kappa. Ariel ♥ Gold 05:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge with List of bridges. That article is already a "list of bridges by country" and allows for links to proper sub-articles (such as List of bridges in Canada) as well as reasonable latitude for listing these "extra notable" bridges on the page--for example, the United States section could have the link to the main article as well as a link & pic for the Golden Gate or Brooklyn bridges. Expand & improve the proper main list rather than fracture the subject into arbitrary notable/less notable pages. &mdash; Scientizzle 18:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * delete as per it should be merged as suggested above. Harlowraman 18:56, 13 August 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.

si:Template:Bottom