Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wakwella 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   no consensus, default to keep. Wizardman 16:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wakwella Bridge

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable bridge. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Some sources on the internet claim it's the longest bridge in Sri Lanka which might make it noteworthy. Since the article has just been created, it should be given a chance to improve (e.g. it might get a pic of the bridge actually depicting the bridge :) ).Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Best I can do is a claim that it's the longest bridge in Sri Lanka built by Sri Lankan engineers, in contrast to the recently opened Sri Lanka-Japan Friendship Bridge, which reliable sources confirm is 302m long (990 feet), so Wakwella can't actually be a 1300 foot span. There really aren't any sources which meet WP:V for this at this time. --Dhartung | Talk 19:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep without prejudice to resubmit and edit. I'm willing to assume some good faith on this one.  Even if it isn't the longest bridge there, it seems to be a fairly significant one. WP:BRIDGES might want to get involved.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm looking for information to add to this article. If I find it, I'll restructure it fairly drastically, and lose the existing picture since the picture doesn't show the bridge.  Structurae doesn't list this bridge.  The web mentions it but no more than that.  I've sent a query to the Institute of Engineers in Sri Lanka to see if they might be able to point me somewhere useful.  If I find anything of relevance, and/or they send me something useful, I'll be sure to update the article.  As it is, I can't do more to fight for this article, which as an "inclusionist", I find bothersome.  I think it'd be better without the misleading image. - Denimadept (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep As per above. But it needs cleanup and references.  Lady   Galaxy  22:45, 14 August 2008 (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.