Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pghbridges.com (3rd nomination)


 * 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 delete. The source analysis by Jacona, which shows that there is not substantial coverage of the topic, and that it therefore fails WP:GNG, has remained unrebutted.  Sandstein  07:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Pghbridges.com
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Completing nomination by IP 209.82.165.136: Pghbridges.com, only has one source, should be deleted. SN54129 17:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   SN54129  17:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Pennsylvania.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep ... but as the article creator (a long time ago now, very early in my wiki-career), I freely admit bias. If this article does get deleted, all the information should be moved to WP: space... specifically to the Bridges project pages. (perhaps to WikiProject Bridges/List of bridge reference sites)  As I said before, this site is a good reference for bridge articles, and has enough notability to pass muster. Notability doesn't "go away" with time, it was notable in 2004 and in 2010, and we are not exactly hurting for space. What has changed since the last time this was nominated? Or the time before? It was kept both times. ++Lar: t/c 03:50, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - the only things I find are trivial mentions. Found nothing at newspapers.com and newspaperarchive.com. There is nothing that looks like significant coverage to me; this fails WP:GNG. Jacona (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment. Since this has been relisted, I decided to look back at the previous nomination for deletion. The only criteria they had for keeping it was this and this now-dead url . Both of these articles do nothing more than mention the existence of the site; neither gives it a complete paragraph, they are both local to the subject. Since then, there is also another miniscule mention here . These are at best WP:TRIVIA, and definitely not significant coverage. This article fails WP:GNG. Jacona (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Lots of other websites reference this site: some make use of the images or the history, a wide range (schools, gov, reports,…) link to Bridge Basics for its educational value. StrayBolt (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but the argument there is that the reference value of the site to WP could be preserved by moving the article into a subpage of the Bridge project. (that's an argument made in earlier discussions.... it happens to be one I don't personally agree with but I would be remiss not to mention it....) ... and the fact that other sites reference it for valuable resources doesn't itself make a site notable (again, not something I personally agree with, but ...) ++Lar: t/c 13:12, 6 May 2022 (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.