Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Port Columbus Airport Crossover Taxiway 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 Move to aircraft bridge and rewrite accordingly.  Sandstein  16:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Port Columbus Airport Crossover Taxiway Bridge

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Airport taxiway bridges are not notable. Half the page is written as an advert for the architect and engineers of record. The only link to the page is from the architect's page. Millbrooky (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Aside from this profile in a trade magazine and press releases by the architects, I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename per doncram's excellent work to transform this into a general article about taxiway bridges. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, although transform (and move/rename) the article to cover the general topic of a taxiway bridge, with the Port Columbus one being a perfectly good example with photos, etc., to use in the article.
 * The nominator is right that we don't need an article about each and every separate taxiway bridge in the world, but we do need one general article. I happen to have created many articles about historic bridges listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and it has been interesting to learn about different special bridge types (truss bridge (with many variations), deck arch bridge, girder bridge, slab bridge, etc.) in the process, from reading the wikipedia articles about them.  There are some very boring types of bridges now, but the first ones of each type are going to be notable (e.g. North 21st Street Bridge, a "continuous concrete rigid-frame girder bridge", is NRHP-listed).  While the article is short, the source for that article makes clear that it is historic and important, although there are now thousands upon thousands of such bridges.  And, whether or not the first ones are known, it is also perfectly legitimate to use any example of the type, in an article about the type.
 * I don't think the article will survive AFD process if it is not transformed, and I like the photos and think the bridges look beautiful, and this is my idea to save the coverage and use it well in building the encyclopedia. Also we need an article on the general topic:  in the world there are probably 50 to 200 or so of them, and they are different: they are bridges to carry airplanes in the special setting of airports which need to intertwine road and rail/metro traffic with traffic of people-movers in the airport with traffic of the airplanes themselves.  Giant taxiway bridges solve a problem, and didn't exist until probably the 1960's or 70's (my guess), and require different materials / technology than other bridges.  When the first taxiway bridge in the U.S. reaches 50 years old, it will become eligible to be listed on the NRHP and I would support such a listing.  It's not far-fetched:  consider the 1935-built Fresno Municipal Sanitary Landfill, which was NRHP-listed and further recognized as a National Historic Landmark in 2001.
 * Taxiway bridges are mentioned explicitly in about 10 Wikipedia articles already (where I will wikilink the term), and will naturally be included in many more articles about airports in the future.
 * The proper vote for this is Keep, though the suggestion/requirement to move/rename the article can be included in a decision. (Note that move and rename are not AFD outcomes recognized in the wp:AFDSTATS system.) I may edit somewhat in the article towards generalizing it, but note that during this AFD it will likely remain a stub/starter article on the topic.  The general topic, however, is obviously valid IMO.  -- do  ncr  am  18:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * why not then vote to "merge" this article with the taxiway bridge article (once it is created), rather than vote for keep? If we had a general article for taxiway bridges, then I would support a merge. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Because my interest is in avoiding deletion, which is what we at AFD do too much of, punitively and unimaginatively, IMHO.
 * I strongly prefer to Keep this one and move it (which has the same effect as a new creation plus a merger). I am motivated to work on the general topic only because of this AFD. I personally feel we ought to take whatever steps possible to support editors like User:Wsvan who created this article, instead of demoralizing them and driving them away with negative tags, AFDs, etc.  I further see that the photos in the article, along with other photos related to architects Rosales + Partners, are under deletion nomination pressure at Commons.  But Wsvan obtained OTRS copyright release for other photos that were in the batch, and I am hopeful they will be encouraged and persist in doing the same for these ones.  If we delete the article, we say "screw you" to the content editor and most likely lose the photos, and we would have nothing with which to start a new general article.  Also I don't want to steal the "credit" for starting a new article from the editor who had the creative idea and did the work. :) I don't blame the deletion nominator or deletion voters here, but I feel with some passion that the Wikipedia editing environment is lousy in general and specifically it is bad because of how AFD is operated.
 * By the way I have just added some to the article towards making a list of taxiway bridges and the like (at LAX, Indianapolis, Florida, Amsterdam Schiphol so far). There may be very few of them in the world, maybe less a dozen or so, I am now thinking.  I do recall how unusual it seemed to me when I first saw, from a motorway below, an airplane crossing, probably at LAX.  Maybe it is still very unusual.  From Google maps it looks like Dallas/Fort Worth airport doesn't have any.  Also from Google maps I can see that Copenhagen Airport has one runway and one taxiway crossing a roadway, Denmark 221. -- do  ncr  am  20:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Now the article lists 18 airports having bridges or tunnels, some with multiple ones, with a 1967-built taxiway bridge at O'Hare Airport seeming to be the earliest! And numerous references.  And although the article requires re-organizing some if/when it is moved, to Aircraft bridges, I hope all can see that there's a very solid topic there.  The article already jumped to the top of Google searches on "taxiway bridge design", and I find no existing books on the topic, so maybe it's going to be an important article. :) -- do  ncr  am  01:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Those are all excellent points. To be honest, I share many of your concerns about the AFD process and biting newcomers. I commend your recognition of the fact that we did not have a general article about taxiway bridges, and more generally, for your creative thinking about how to resolve this AFD nomination. I am in full support of transitioning this article into a general article about taxiway bridges, and I have struck my previous vote accordingly. Given the fact that Aircraft bridge and Taxiway bridge are both redlinks (and given your excellent work to transform the article) I think you can safely make a bold page move to one of those titles. Thanks again, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Technically now I think it would best be moved to Aircraft bridge with Taxiway bridge redirected to there, and then cleaned up a bit.  I have a few times moved articles that were at AFD, but sometimes that is confusing to a closer (e.g., here, where a closer objected to the article having been transformed during the AFD).  I invested time and effort so this article will receive Keep outcome. -- do  ncr  am  06:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Move to runway bridge or taxiway bridge and keep the general content while removing the COATRACK heavily focusing on the one in Columbus. The article has good information about those in general, and it seems to be a notable topic, but individual runway bridges are not notable. Smartyllama (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That is calling for a Keep decision, with condition that the article be moved. "Move" is not one of the defined AFD outcomes.  I mostly agree with your general view, with the caveat that individual runway or taxiway bridges are not notable, unless they are in fact notable. :)  Anyhow, in a moved article, I would reduce the emphasis on the Columbus example, but it is perfectly fine to discuss it as a convenient example, for which we have detailed information.  I would also expand discussion of the Chicago O'Hare example, which possibly was the first taxiway bridge ever, and which anyhow has been discussed in some detail in several reliable sources. -- do  ncr  am  06:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Move to Aircraft bridge as the parent topic. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, i give up, given repeated !votes for what I consider to be a technically invalid AFD outcome, but which a closer just might use just to be weird. I hope/trust they won't do something else just to be weird now, because I just now moved the article under AFD to Aircraft bridge, and set up redirects at Taxiway bridge and Runway bridge.
 * Anyhow, all who commented after 12 July agree. So this is ready to be closed (Keep). -- do  ncr  am  16:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Move as suggested. SwisterTwister   talk  06:21, 27 July 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.