Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Pghbridges.com

Moved from AfD

 * I'm the article creator, and I admit I was of two minds about creating it, but decided it WAS encyclopedic. I have leaned extensively on this site for articles I've created here already, (Coraopolis Bridge for one) and plan to do so more in future. Personally, I don't think it fails WP:WEB per se (having had a hand in some of the discussion there) although it does fail the numbers tests (something I highlighted in the article itself). Here's the question for you delete voters: Where should this site be described? Is there somewhere in wikipediaspace for documenting reference sites? HAER has an article in articlespace. This is like HAER, except that it's more focused, and has deeper coverage in a certain geography. Documenting this site is not a way to make it more notable, it's a way to improve research here. Keep unless you can answer that question (where should it go if not in articlespace) satisfactorily. ++Lar: t/c 19:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should move it (without redirect) to WikiProject Bridges/List of bridge reference sites, and list this with others, linking from the project page. This could be a handy resource for people who are likely to use it, more so then the article here.  You could explain the site to the wiki-bridge-editor audience, not the general public.  You could give this site one section, but add other sections for other references sites, and encourage others to also. --Rob 19:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If this article fails the AfD that's what I will do (I'm a member of that project already) to preserve the content, but it's not the best answer, IMHO. Here's another way to look at this. Rather than counting raw links, try doing searches for some bridges around Pittsburgh, for example: . This site comes up on the first page of the search, meaning Google thinks it's one of the best/most referenced sites for the topic. Then take a look at the entry on Structurae.de (another site that **everyone** involved with bridge articles uses): This site's article on the bridge is the second link. AHEAD of the HAER link, even. That demonstrates that for bridges in the Pittsburgh area, the site is well regarded. Maybe there's a bigger question here, how to properly document reference sites... Projects are not well known to newbies about to start on writing things but they are better than nothing. Where is the Master bibliography? ... that seems a needful thing. ++Lar: t/c 19:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we should put Google and Alexa aside. What really counts is whether independent relaiable sources write about this site.  For instance a magazine or newspaper article would be very helpful.  We can't just rely on the site itself, or personal blogs, that might mention it.  Basically, we need to identify good sources of verifiable NPOV information, in order to know we can write a verifiable NPOV article.  --Rob 20:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, while there hasn't been a 6 page Time Magazine spread on it, but I found a half dozen references to it in magazines, local newspapers, and (most significantly to the case I'm making, that this is a site that is important as a reference site several library journals, university science/tech projects and so forth that list it among their top references on this topic. Those were added to the article. ++Lar: t/c 22:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The criteria state that "the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" and specifically exclude "trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores." Can we move this discussion to the talk page where it belongs? It's getting unwieldy for the main AfD. RasputinAXP  talk contribs 23:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with it here, because I don't think WP:WEB even applies, really. Evaluating this as a website misses the point of what this reference is. ++Lar: t/c 23:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * We're gonna wrap the columns around backwards in a comment or two. I'll bounce back to the top. I just meant that we needed to move the discussion here because it belongs here. Anyhow, WP:WEB applies here because it is a website. Reference use aside, it is what it is. RasputinAXP  talk contribs 23:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's important for all the drive by voters (of which there have been some already, their contributions suggest they haven't read the article, read the discussion or anything, just honed in on someone citing WP:WEB...) to be aware that there is more to this than WP:WEB and moving this to the talk page hides that. The discussion should be un-refactored. Also, you need to address why WP:WEB applies to reference sites. Of the 6 inward links I found in 5 minutes of searching, only 2 are from newspapers or magazines. The others are from scholarly research sites, explaining why this site is a good reference resource. In passing, I note for the record you've been awarded a "Deletionist Barnstar"... is there anything that would convince you, because if not, maybe I'm wasting my time talking to a hardcore deletionist that can't be convinced. If so, what? ++Lar: t/c 00:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oy. Refactoring the page was because discussion regarding the topic belongs on the talk page, not on the AfD page. It always has and always will. Yes, I was awarded a Deletionist's Barnstar. I AM A DELETIONISTA AND CTRL-H GUEVARA IS MY HERO. Not really. WP:WEB applies because it is an article about a website, plain and simple. This is what the AfD process is for, hashing out whether or not articles that are brought to AfD should be deleted. If they pass policy and/or precedent, they stay. If not, they go. I'm sorry, I'm really trying to be clear as well as civil about this; you're issuing thinly veiled ad hominem attacks at me based on the fact that I once received a Deletionist Barnstar. If you find me anything that meets WP:WEB, applied because Pghbridges.com is a website, then I'll change my mind. I do vote keep sometimes as well. Merge more often. Delete even more often than that, because frequently what gets brought here should be. I said it in my nomination: it's a very nice site. In and of itself it's not notable. Show me another guideline that applies. Also, review WP:NOT, WP:N...please understand it's not personal.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 05:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, let me address these one by one (with the benefit of having slept on it) First, the refactoring. It is not always true that discussion gets refactored, (see for example Articles_for_deletion/List_of_SWIFT_codes, an article I strongly argued needed to go the first time, and one that JzG beat me to renominating this time) and at least one other participant in this particular discussion pointed out that important points (like the fact that if this AfD succeeds, the article should be moved to projectspace) might be missed by being here. Yes, the closing admin can be asked to undelete and move it, should they not see it, but why put them through more work? Yes, maybe some readers will come here, but how many are just going to repeat what they already see on the AfD page in a oneliner? Next, I have repeatedly tried to show two things at once: that this reference is not an ordinary website and therefore the guidelines in WP:WEB should not be applied strictly, and further that in any case, the reference does have notability (the links from scholarly sites, the awards, the large number of mentions on usenet). You haven't really addressed that, you just keep reiterating "it's a website" without rebutting my argument that it's not an ordinary one (not a band site, not a game forum, not a blog, not a webcomic, to name a few type that regularly get deleted, and rightly so, for non notability), and shouldn't be judged that way. HAER isn't a website either, despite having a web presence. Now, pointing out that you got a deletionists barnstar may seem snarky to you, and for that I apologise, but to me that wasn't the intent, rather it just suggests that maybe I'm wasting my time, that no amount of convincing is going to change your mind. Why dump effort in? Because you're the originator, and when the originator changes their mind, it's usually a quite powerful argument, so I was willing to devote some effort, but maybe I need to cut my losses. Except for Rob, no one else has invested any time in serious discussion. Rob made some good points, which I addressed by adding things to the article (that's the GOOD outcome of AfD when it works right, articles get improved by the process. Finally, I've noticed that sometimes when people say "it's not personal" or call out WP:CIVIL, they're the ones actually taking it personally. I'm not. I have full confidence that the closing admin (that is, if they find this hidden discussion, remember the talk page isn't transcluded into talk:AfD the way the main page is transcluded into AfD) isn't going to delete this outright, they are either going to keep, or they are going to recommend that it be moved to project space, which I will do. Is there a chance, you on the other hand, are now taking it personally? Step back, think about what I said, stop repeating "it's a website" over and over without addressing why reference sites aren't different. Or let it go, and move on. Perhaps you've made your points just much as you can. ++Lar: t/c 14:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If you have "scholarly research sites, explaining why this site is a good reference resource", maybe you should quote some of them in the article. That's exactly the kind of "verifiable NPOV information" the article needs.  (Note: The quotes in the previous sentences are meant to identify verbatin quotations from the discussion, not as scare quotes.)  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Added. However the article is getting more and more crufted up with this sort of verification stuff, to the point that it's drowning out the actual meat. IMHO anyway. ++Lar: t/c 20:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't had much time to look into this yet (being my birthday and having spent the day at Tate Modern and a concert at St Paul's Cathedral, since you didn't ask) but: this seems to me to be one of those cases where what is being voted on is not quite what it seems. As a website, this looks a lot like a clear delete, without strong evidence of notability from verifiable external sources (and Lar, that does not mean I dispute your judgment, but rules is rules).  The point that it is not a website but a bridge database is interesting, in which case I'd say the article needs to be refactored - preferably to an unambiguous keep like Pittsburgh (bridges) or some such, since the area is supposedly notable for the number of them; this can then be rolled in as a source and discussed as such. Add some pictures, some other sources for the claim that the area is well known for its bridges, and robertus avunculus. If it's kept as a website-which-is-not-a-website it will cause problems either by having this same argument every now and then when someone Alexas it, or by being used as a precedent for other sites with stratospheric Alexa ranks. Just my $0.02. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] AfD? 22:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Happy Birthday Jzg, and style points for working "Bob's your uncle!" (in latin no less!) into the discussion. I'm coming around to thinking that (until the larger question of whether bibliographic sources should be handled at a higher level than just cites in articles gets attention) having this article become a section of a subpage of WikiProject Bridges that discusses ALL the references available and how they're best used, what to watch out for, areas of coverage, etc. is not an unacceptable outcome if "keep" doesn't carry the day. But I'm not sure the article could be reworked directly into Pittsburgh (bridges) as is, because that's not what it is, it's a source. ( Pittsburgh (bridges) is a good article topic because Pittsburgh DOES have a lot of bridges, and there is encyclopedic commentary to be said about the research into how the location, order of building, and other factors related to bridges influenced growth of the city and WHERE it happened.) But that's not this article, especially not with all the WP:V cruft it has in there now, which isn't relevant to how to use the reference as a good source, it was all put in to defend the article against this AfD. Consider also http://structurae.de which has an alexa rank of about 77K... that's a (worldwide scope) source for bridges, highly respected and depending on how this AfD comes out, it will either get an article soon too, or be another section of that bridge specific bibliography I'm talking about. Where I am going with this is that bibliographies are important to readers, not just article writers, and having them be article specific (lists of refs) means they don't carry as much about the sources as they could. Looked at another way, the typical game forum or band website is never going to be much of a reference for anything, but these sites are important (as HAER is) BECAUSE they're references, and thus should not be subject to the same WP:WEB tests but instead judged by different criteria (a point I raised somewhere near there recently). ++Lar: t/c 23:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying about reference sites. But that can be solved by documenting the source body, not just the site, surely?  Consider IRTAD (de:IRTAD).  The Alexa rank of the site is around the million mark but it is a key authority for international comparitive road safety statistics.  It doesn't matter because an article is about IRTAD and the database, not the website.  But what you suggest re a project subpage also has obvious merit.  I'll pop next door and vote (TINAV) for it :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] AfD? 20:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Good suggestions, but the only problem here is that both pghbridges.com and structurae.de don't have organizations behind them. The organization for civil engineering stuff, at least in the US, ASCE, has an article here, and has a website, which I've used (especially for bios, if you want a bio for one of the top 50 civil engineers in the US by their gauge, that's a good place to start) but these two sites completely blow it away in depth and breadth of coverage.... (pghbridges in depth in one specific area, and structurae in depth AND breadth since it's world wide.) But neither has organizational backing, they're both apparently run by a fan (or small group of fans) of bridges. This gets at the question, are researchers part of the target audience for WP or just the interested reader who wants to know something, but not a lot? Researchers are going to want to know more about sources than just what the refs in an article give, so docoumenting sources somewhere (so the refs themselves can link to the source info) seems goodness... Look at Coraopolis Bridge, all the refs in it have links to HAER or to pghbridges.com besides citing where in the source they got their info.

Somewhat tangentially, I just noticed on meta that the French Wikipedia has started a separate namespace for references. I haven't looked into it more deeply, but at face value it doesn't seem like a bad idea at all. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that sounds like a great idea, is WP:VP the best place to start digging into whether a separate namespace would make sense here? I don't read french so wasn't able to suss out the main details, but the example with a dropdown box that lets you view things in different formats seems intruiging. Thanks for mentioning this! ++Lar: t/c 04:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)