Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Webster Avenue 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 keep. A merge, as suggested by, may be the best long term way to incorporate this information, but there is clearly a consensus to keep the content. Mojo Hand (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Webster Avenue Bridge

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is a random bridge over a train line, and is not notable in any way. This is not a major bridge over a river, or one that is architecturally significant. We can't have articles for every bridge over a train line in an encyclopedia. Would this random bridge in my neighborhood also deserve an article? Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 12:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article has abundant references which adequately demonstrate notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yes it's a small bridge, but it seems to be well referenced. Is there a policy- and guideline-based rationale for deletion? pburka (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to an appropriate article (e.g. Port Washington Branch) per WP:NBUILD and WP:NOTNEWS. The bridge is not architecturally notable per WP:NBUILD and it's not even a bridge, just an overpass over the Port Washington Branch. Its main claim to fame is that it is being replaced right now. In the "Description" section, the main reference used is a wiki (bridgehunter.com) and the only sources in that section that aren't bridgehunter are used to describe the location of the overpass. That is not enough to demonstrate its notability, as it is very easy to find sources that demonstrate where something is located. The first part of the history section doesn't really give me confidence either as numerous overpasses were built across this line around the same time. Source 6 doesn't mention the overpass at all, only that the line opened, and sources 5 and 7 are primarily about the current bridge rehabilitation.That said, the main issue why this bridge appears notable is because of the damage identified in 1979 and the subsequent repairs in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. However, per WP:NOTNEWS, this could adequately be described in another page, like the Port Washington Branch page. Merely needing repairs and spanning a railroad line does not make a bridge unique per WP:MILL. Looking through newspapers.com and ProQuest, most of the search results seem to discuss either repairs, crashes, or traffic reports, which doesn't give me confidence in the subject's notability Epicgenius (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Per policy WP:NOTPAPER, we can have as many articles about bridges as we like. The nomination fails to demonstrate a problem which, unlike the bridge, needs fixing. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER and the rationale "We can't have articles for every bridge over a train line in an encyclopedia." just isn't a valid reason for deleting an article. If there are adequate sources to write an article, why not go ahead and write it? NemesisAT (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2021 (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.