Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washington Toll Bridge Authority


 * 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   keep. J04n(talk page) 16:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Washington Toll Bridge Authority

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No sources, no references, no nothing, on the other hand it doesn't seem to hit any CSD Criteria and the notability is questionable in my head so it's not PROD worthy to me. Since CSD and PROD fail an AfD is the way to see it through. MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 20:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a serious AfD in case anyone is still stuck in April Fools land. MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 20:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. An important state agency that existed from 1937 to 1977, built the Tacoma Narrows Bridge (twice!) and other bridges, and ran the Washington State Ferries. Given its years of existence, there is likely to be more material off-line, but GNews and GBooks do show some potentially useful sources. The existing text of the article appears to be a close copy of  and needs to be rewritten. Additional concise histories of the Authority can be found here:   --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep As Arxiloxos explained so well, we have here a state agency that existed for 40 years, and completed major civil engineering projects. Reliable sources have been identified, and there is a strong presumption that many more exist offline. This is encyclopedic material, though the article does need work.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  02:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep as per other voters. Yes, the article needs improving but that is not enough to delete it, or where would be be?--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 08:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. This ws a major state agency; these are almost always notable, and are usually covered extensively in sources. These would be offline sources, but online-ness is not required, and while the article does need work badly, AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:38, 4 April 2013 (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.