Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Avenue 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 no consensus. Leaning to keep, but there is a fair amount of dissent from the subjective question of whether this structure is notable. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Mary Avenue Bridge

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is pedestrian bridge over a highway. There is nothing in the article that establishes notability. Billhpike (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. tentatively . Has wp:BEFORE been performed?  No assertion in the nomination.  It's not just any ordinary pedestrian bridge, it is high design, and it was renamed, generating more coverage presumably.  The article already has several sources, including Structurae database entry in external links. --Doncram (talk) 08:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't searched yet for available online sources, but the alternative name should be checked, too:
 * should be checked also. --Doncram (talk) 08:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * First hit that I checked is this Gizmodo article on 15 of the world's best urban bike infrastructures, which lists it first with classy photo.  This is notable. --Doncram (talk) 08:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The Gizmoda article has a total of 18 words about this bridge. Are there any sources that give significant coverage as required by WP:GNG? Billhpike (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the nature of that article, with its featured photo of the bridge, is indeed significant coverage. Is there more?  Sure, how about this Mercury News article "Roadshow: New bicycle bridge over I-280 is striking span".  Again it seems to me that wp:BEFORE was not performed. --Doncram (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * At best, all coverage in the Mercury-News amounts to a single source for the purpose of WP:GNG Billhpike (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There were four to six sources in the article that were fine at the time of the nomination, none of which were the San Jose Mercury News. Unscintillating (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * At the time of nomination, the sources consisted of ENR article (not independent), a city of Cupertino webpage (not independent), a 16 word blog post, a dead link to a picture of plaque on the Cupertino website, a Structurae entry (trivial coverage and self-published), and a dead link to a webcam feed. None of the sourcres  satisfy WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE turned up a few Mercury-News articles, which together count as a single source per WP:GNG. Billhpike (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That is helpful, thank you. The main point I see in reply is that while GNG requires "sources", where sources means more than one source, the contributions of significant coverage can come mostly from one WP:RS source, such as the regional newspaper the San Jose Mercury News.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * It's a $14.8 million 500 ft bridge.  It is a big deal, and covered in numerous articles.  There is a reason why someone chose to create a Wikipedia article on this topic, as opposed to the absence of articles on many non-descript or ugly concrete beam pedestrian bridges.  Perhaps the deletion nominator should consider, if there's a Wikipedia article, maybe indeed there's a reason for it. --Doncram (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The price tag doesn't establish notability. Even worse, are you really going to argue that because someone wrote an article, it must be notable. That kind of circular logic makes no sense at all.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep because I'm an Inclusionist and I like the way it looks. I don't remember why I originally created this article. - Denimadept (talk) 08:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete -- If Mary Street is notable, then this one is too: . It got a lot of press, too. Rhadow (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Huh? That doesn't seem like a reason.  Sure, that other pedestrian bridge may indeed be notable.  Offhand the one source doesn't inspire me to create an article about it, unlike the Mary Avenue Bridge one, which is striking on a world-wide level, but you're right that if wp:GNG is met then it is notable too. --Doncram (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - Has been mentioned in Engineering News Record (ENR), which makes it notable. Article has verifiable sources too. - Morphenniel (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The ENR article was written by the firm that managed the construction of the bridge and thus does not serve establish notability. Billhpike (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you claiming that ENR is not a WP:RS? Unscintillating (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps some articles in ENR are reliable sources, but the article you linked to is not sufficiently independent from the construction company to satisfy WP:GNG. 02:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC) Edited to correct Morphenniel posted ENR article Billhpike (talk) 03:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask a question here about an article I linked to. Publishers don't lose their independence just because they choose articles written by subject matter experts.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment, the bridge won a Helen Putnam Award of Excellence - here is the listing, and here is an indepth article on the bridge, this article talks of it winning "a gold award for engineering excellence from the American Council of Engineering Companies of New York." (have been unable to confirm this on the ACEC site). Coolabahapple (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * Keep Neither GNG nor WP:NOT limit coverage of pedestrian bridges.  As per GNG, sources establish notability, whether or not they are in the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The Western City article was written by a city employee and does not serve to establish notability. Billhpike (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * City employees serve the public. Unscintillating (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Neither GNG nor WP:NOT limit coverage of pedestrian bridges.  As per GNG, sources establish notability, whether or not they are in the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The Western City article was written by a city employee and does not serve to establish notability. Billhpike (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * City employees serve the public. Unscintillating (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment, and i know commercial business sites aren't useable for notability but this is interesting (hang on coola, another no, no:)) even levis strauss talks about it here so its well known. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete- Looks like a really nice bridge, but I don't see anything notable about it, just some local press coverage. The Helen Putnam award doesn't seem to be particularly notable and being that the source says 2019 Award Winning Entries, I think those are actually nominations (either that or someone has a flux capacitor). The assumptions that the nominator acted in WP:BADFAITH are uncalled for.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The exclusion of sourcing from "local press coverage" in this !vote is disputed, as no guideline basis for doing so is provided. Unscintillating (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The idea, that there exist "assumptions" of "BADFAITH" in this AfD, diff, appears only in this !vote. To say that such assumptions "are uncalled for" is therefore knocking down a straw man.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This !vote bolds Delete without stating an opinion or citing a guideline, although it uses the word "notable".


 * From WP:ATA:
 * {| style="background:#DDFFFF"


 * === Just pointing at a policy or guideline ===
 * === Just pointing at a policy or guideline ===
 * === Just pointing at a policy or guideline ===

...merely citing a policy or guideline...does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand...

...deletion discussions are not "votes". They are discussions with the goal of determining consensus...
 * }
 * Unscintillating (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The comments above is blatant WP:WIKILAWYERING and should be ignored as it adds nothing of value to the discussion.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * From WP:Wikilawyering, "The word 'Wikilawyering' typically has negative connotations...those utilizing the term should take care that it can be backed up and isn't frivolous (see WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL)." Unscintillating (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's clearly backed up by your constant inappropriate "!vote is disputed" comments in countless AfDs.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The WP:NPA link states that one of the examples of a personal attack is "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." So first of all, where are the diffs for these "constant" and "countless AfDs", and next, how is the statement "inappropriate"?  Unscintillating (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to argue with you here. If you feel its a personal attack, take it to the proper venue. There is also no reason for me to show you diffs of your own editing, you know what you wrote.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Then do you agree that the count of "constant" and "countless AfDs" is two? Unscintillating (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We will NOT be discussing this here anymore! Please go to your thread at WP:ANI if you want to discuss.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * To meet the demands of Unscintillating (because that is the ultimate goal of AfD), the article fails WP:GNG because independent in-depth coverage is lacking.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - while it is true that GNG does not depend on sources currently included in the article, searches do not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, secondary sources to show notability. When editors make this statement, without including those sources, their !votes become irrelevant. Even local coverage is scanty.  Onel 5969  TT me 02:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The content of this article can likely be merged into Interstate 280. Billhpike (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep sources noted in discussion establish the bridge as notable per our guidelines. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep seems notable enough! Expertwikiguy (talk) 03:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment


 * Unscintillating (talk) 04:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems to me to meet the notability criteria and the article is otherwise OKish. I'm bothered about the thought that local sources are to be disregarded. Is this somewhere in the guidelines or is it merely someone's point of view? If there is a suitable pointer to the guidance I'll certainly reconsider. Thincat (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - The sources provided by Okish indicate notability. Newsflash: Pedestrian bridges over highways can be notable. --Oakshade (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:GNG. Andrew D. (talk) 09:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Weakish keep Not too convinced but how's the prospects of a merge? Winged Blades Godric 14:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets GNG. Well within the parameters of our expansive transportation-related coverage (train stations, anyone?). Carrite (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep sources support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Sorry guys, but I'm just not seeing it. It's a minor route, it's a very typical design for modern wide-span footbridges. If it's a 'landmark', then maybe, but that needs sources on that basis. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets GNG.--IndyNotes (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - According to sourcing, this bridge is the only cable stayed bridge over a highway in California, which makes it notable architecturally. Not only that, its success using steel instead of concrete has led to at least one other California city (San Jose) referencing it in its own bridge proposal [], so there's lasting notability, which meets WP:NOTTEMPORARY. I added a couple of sources, explaining the name change and the architectural notability.  Info about the bridge could certainly be added to Interstate 280 (California), but not as a replacement for this article, because there wouldn't be an easy way for the info to be found over there. If the keep momentum continues and this is closed as keep, the article needs to be moved to its new name. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  00:45, 23 January 2018 (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.