Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge in fiction and film


 * 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 merge, though most all of the content was already in the main article anyway. Wickethewok 15:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge in fiction and film
Not quite notable enough for its own article - this content can perfectly fit into this --Harrison V 01:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. It seems that this page was created as the result of the discussions on Featured article candidates/San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, so that the article San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge would be promoted to featured article status. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and mark for Merge discussion&mdash;Should this not be marked to merge rather than to delete? Williamborg 02:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * DELETE ALL CONTENT, FULLY PROTECT THE PAGE, AND INSERT THE TEMPLATE deletedpage --Railer 812 02:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please don't shout. -- Koffieyahoo 02:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with San_Francisco-Oakland_Bay_Bridge, that's where it belongs. -- Koffieyahoo 02:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC) Delete the highlights are already in San_Francisco-Oakland_Bay_Bridge others are easily found by "what links here". -- Koffieyahoo 07:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: It's an errant trivia section created by someone being very courteous and not wishing to delete someone's work.  The problem is that it is a tail looking for a dog at this point.  If the FAC voters thought it needed to go from its logical home, it certainly needs to go as an orphan.  Geogre 02:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep/merge: seemed pretty interesting to me.--Musaabdulrashid 02:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy close, since AfD is not a merge discussion. I have struck out Railer 812's vote as s/he has been indefinitely blocked for vandalism. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 02:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment half the votes at the moment are deletes, so I don't think this applies. -- Koffieyahoo 03:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this before it inspires more bored compulsive list-makers to come up with similar articles about other landmarks. Crabapplecove 02:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete content already covered in bridge article section. Also WP is not a collection of internal links.  It would be perfectly appropriate for each of the fiction/film articles to link to the bridge article.  And then the "what links here" could be used. &mdash; MrDolomite | Talk 02:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unnecessary trivia page. Redundant to the main article. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 03:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 04:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge per nom.--Jusjih 04:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge per nom. Medtopic 06:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: A merge (and presumably "redirect") isn't all that useful, as the material is already covered in straight line prose in the article.  Therefore, those who do not wish to delete really need to decide on whether it is a likely redirect.  Geogre 11:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Geogre: not a likely search term, so not very useful as a redirect. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 13:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This is noteworthy content - it should by all means appear [here - but not in its own article. Given the consensus here, I have just added the necessary content to that section of that article. --[[User:Harrison V|Harrison V]] 13:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * NOTE: This afd has been vandalized.  The vandal has been blocked for 3 hours.  Geogre 14:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Note, Railer 96Z has continued to blank this nomination, including with insulting edit summaries. This is not allowed.  Geogre 14:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Follow up: User:Railer 96Z has been blocked indefinitely as an impersonation account.  See WP:AN/I for more information.  Geogre 18:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The set of entries in the article is very weak and does not make a case for this bridge having much importance in film or fiction. Furthermore, none of the entries is sourced, and the article completely fails to meet the verifiability policy. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I created this page when working on getting San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge to FA status.  The criticism was that the section was not long enough or thorough enough.  Frankly,  I'm interested in bridges, and not particularly interested in how bridges appear in fiction and film.  I knew that this subject was potentially huge, and I really did not want it to clutter up the article about the bridge, nor did I want to research it any further.  So I split it off.  I don't think this article is harmful, and I would not like to see this information added back to the parent,  I'd also hate to see the parent stripped of its FA status because this information was not covered more thoroughly.  Therefore, I hope it will be kept. --Samuel Wantman 06:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I do have to agree that you have a lot of good content in this article, but I feel it would be best if it was inserted into San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. I feel that a landmark's references in fiction is not quite notable enough for its own article, and this article is also short enough to easily fit into that article.  Thanks for your consideration. --Harrison V 13:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is notable, and it does not belong in San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. That would add too much to the article, and it appears that it was already taken out with good reason during its FA process. --  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 20:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Merge. I looked at a few other notable structures and nearly all have a "in film" or "in fiction" or "in popular culture" section; seems appropriate for this as well. I note we do have an article Skyscrapers in film, and perhaps moving the content to begin a Bridges in film article wouldn't be a bad idea but we'd have to get a few others to make the article less Bay-Bridge centric. Carlossuarez46 23:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, so I was WP:BOLD and started the Bridges in film article. Anyone interested keep it going! Carlossuarez46 23:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge back. Seems clear enough.  (Removing material is not an appropriate way to get FA status.)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per other suggestions above. rootology 06:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It should not have been nominated for deletion where a mergeto tag suffices, in my opinion. In any case, I favor moving popular culture references out of major articles in most cases. The main article is 32 kilobytes long. Consider moving the article to San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge in culture, a shorter, more inclusive title. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would be agreeable to this. This is not the only article that was split off of the Bay Bridge article, there is also Eastern span replacement of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge.  Now if anything is to be merged back into the article it should be the eastern span replacement, and NOT the cultural stuff.  Deleting San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge in fiction and film will not make all the cultural references go away.  They will all end up added back to the main article, to the detriment of the main article. You can fight the things that people add to Wikipedia, or find a better place for them.  Having all the curtural stuff cluttering up the article puts too much emphasis on the cultural stuff. -- Samuel Wantman 21:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge. If someone split this out because of the size of the article, then there are larger sections in the bridge article that would be better as a stand alone article. Vegaswikian 18:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge. As stated above. Orangehead 16:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - highlights are already in the main article. The editors of the main article can cherry pick any other ripe fruit. Note to Mergers - a merge can be undone tomorrow by any editor leaving us back where we started. BlueValour 02:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge - very interesting but not enough to be its own topic. Mallanox 19:16, 1 August 2006 (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.