Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Finch Avenue Bailey 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. JForget 03:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Old Finch Avenue Bailey Bridge

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested WP:PROD. Non-notable temporary bridge. MickMacNee (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's not clear why the nom feels this topic is non-notable, except that it is a "temporary bridge." Temporary bridges can be notable (in this case, the "temporary" bridge has been functional for decades).  Now (magazine) labels this Toronto's "Best bridge." --Oakshade (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't say non-notable temporary bridge any clearer than by saying 'non-notable temporary bridge' I'm afraid. I assume you don't want me to copy paste the notability guideline here right? I'll leave it to others to decide whether being voted Toronto's best bridge by Now magazine is a notable achievement, seeing as we don't really have a guide for how famous a temporary bridge has to be before we have an article on it. MickMacNee (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * When a nom only types non-notable, it only seems the nom just wants an article deleted for unknown and possible arbitrary reasons. To me, this reads "I don't think there should be articles about any temporary bridges."  Again, a bridge being "temporary" in of itself is not a valid reason to delete an article about a bridge.  I see you have also nominated Barker Crossing for deletion for generally the same reason and that AfD is showing a preference for "keep."  In this bridge's case, there is no indication by any source that there are even plans for a replacement.  Calling a bridge "temporary," besides not being grounds for article deletion, isn't in this case in any practical sense accurate.--Oakshade (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * See also Articles for deletion/Lake Shore Boulevard Bailey Bridge -Arb. (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * comment - its not a temporary bridge, its a permanent fixture. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 03:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Coverage in Toronto's Historical Plaques demonstrates that the subject is notable.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per arguments above. The bridge is not a temporary structure, and its method of construction plays no part in its notability, unless that construction was notable itself. The bridge is notable from the links above. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment see Articles for deletion/Barker Crossing for full background to this nomination. Mjroots (talk) 12:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep -- If it is a historic landmark, it is clearly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The bridge has a historical marker and coverage by a secondary source, and it appears to have some significance within the Scarborough community.  As far as its temporary construction goes, it's survived for 55+ years, which means it outlasted the Tacoma Narrows Bridge (1940) even though that bridge was supposed to be permanent.  (Maybe that means the Bailey bridge was a lot better-engineered than the Tacoma Narrows bridge.)  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (without a doubt the Bailey bridge was a lot better-engineered than the Tacoma Narrows bridge). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2010 (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.