Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perley 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 redirect to Long-Sault Bridge. There seems to be consensus that the page shouldn't exist as a standalone article. However, some participants have dug up more information in this discussion which can be potentially added to the article about the successor bridge. Accordingly, I am closing it as a redirect with the history preserved. Given Bearcat's valid concerns about the content in the article along with the lack of reliable sourcing, I decided against a merge. I will leave a note on the target article's talk about this discussion so that interested editors can use the information here for expanding the target article. (non-admin closure) Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Perley Bridge

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete. Article about a bridge which existed, sourced only to a photograph of it and a short case study about the construction of its replacement bridge on the primary source website of the Cement Association of Canada (the industrial trade association of the Canadian cement industry). This is not the kind of reliable sourcing it takes to make a bridge notable enough for a Wikipedia article, if you're shooting for "notable because it existed" rather than "notable because it was unique in some significant way". Bearcat (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete—the sourcing at present fails to meet the required guidelines to establish notability.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The available data should be moved to the page about the existing bridge.Xx236 (talk) 08:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I generally like to preserve historical information and dug up some facts about this bridge that I could add to the article: named after M.P. George Perley who advocated for its construction in 1909, designed by 1919, completed in 1931, actually raised higher in 1961 to facilitate shipping after construction of Carillon Generating Station, length was 2284 feet, 27 trestle spans, 7 other kinds of spans, 24 foot wide roadway, piers sit on sold rock.  One span failed in 1972 and was repaired which led to study that found it severely deteriorated and was being subjected to traffic/weight for which it was not designed. Also, the bridge spans Ottawa and Quebec and the bridge caused Grenville, Quebec to have political/cultural influences from Hawkesbury, Ottawa.  In 1986, local, provincial, and federal politicians reached consensus that a replacement was needed.
 * This would greatly improve the article; however I not going to do this unless there is a decision to keep it. It might still be insufficient for notability. MB 19:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge, to Long-Sault Bridge (the successor bridge, which is a short article that no one is questioning).  To break the impasse here, about whether to add material and sources or not, and see if they're adequate for individual notability or not.  How about merge/redirect to a section in the successor bridge.  Any and all material about the Perley Bridge can go to a section there.  If it seems appropriate to split it back out, that can be done.  If it seems appropriate to rename the combo article to Perley and Long-Sault Bridge or whatever, that can be done.  There is no need to delete the article outright, and if in fact it seems appropriate to re-separate it then the redirect, with its edit history intact, can be revised.   This seems like an obvious alternative-to-deletion that should be followed. -- do  ncr  am  03:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * merge -- support merging to the existing bridge with a redirect, per above. Probably shouldn't stand alone without more info and sourcing; no need to get rid of it entirely. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 23:49, 21 November 2016 (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.