Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Kansas 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   keep. The keep camp demostrates the notability while the delete side just say WP:Not notable. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

North Kansas Avenue Bridge

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Bridge appears to fail the GNG. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable bridge.  Dough 48  72  23:13, 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 This article, like the one previously nominated for AFD, has no references, and merely asserts that the bridge in question exists. There is no "inherent notability" for every bridge  which someone states exists or once existed. Unless someone can find multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, deletion is the appropriate outcome. If multiple bridge articles have been nominated, perhaps that is a result of someone creating multiple articles about non-notable bridges, rather than a demonstration of inappropriate action by the nominator. Edison (talk) 04:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC).
 * Delete - This bridge is not notable. – TC N7  JM  11:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per my comment at Articles for deletion/222nd Street Bridge.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley (what's up) 23:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Not all bridges are notable, but this one is. It replaced a historic bridge that was the only bridge from Topeka to North Topeka, and its location has been blamed for the decline of North Topeka's business district, plus there was a fly-off built on it in 2004, which generated some coverage. This bridge definitely appears to pass WP:GNG. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 21:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Adequate sources showing to pass GNG. Carrite (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - sources show "70 years of history" in significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Very Notable per the source at http://cjonline.com/stories/080507/loc_189135761.shtml Bridge Disasters don't happen everyday and are in nature very notable. Sources about it are harder to find since it happened in the 1960s before the days of wide use of the Internet. Deletion of this page would hinder a possible creation of a Melan Arch Bridge (Topeka) or Melan Arch Bridge Disaster article as much information on this page will be split towards that article. If deleted I will not be able to use that information on that new article unless restored per the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License in Wikipedia. I am currently working on this bridge article on another site and I don't want to lose any sources about it here or there. Sawblade5 (talk to me undefined my wiki life) 15:26, 12 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.