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. Courcelles 00:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

K-99 Wamego Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bridge appears to fail the GNG. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable bridge. Dough4872 23:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We've gone through this before. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-99 Wamego Bridge for an example of a previous AFD. Bridge articles on highways normally end up being kept as stubs simply because they eventually are proven to pass the general notability guideline through offline sources, which takes more time. Further, it seems to me that the nominator is going for a bulk deletion -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Kansas Avenue Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lecompton Road Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-99 Wamego Bridge (2nd nomination) (a second nomination of an AFD already closed as "keep"), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-32 Turner Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morse Street Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/222nd Street Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maple Hill Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paxico Road Bridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highway 2 Bridge.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No "inherent notability" for every two lane bridge which ever existed unless multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources are identified. Edison (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The bridge is not notable. –TCN7JM 10:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I just expanded the article as was concluded as needed during the first AfD. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You call that expansion? It's still nowhere near anything but a stub. –TCN7JM 21:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • A stub can be a legitimate article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Excuse the random hostility there. Don't know what got into me. You're correct, though. –TCN7JM 05:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Excused! No problems!--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source three does not look reliable, source two is a trivial mention (literally a DYK fact), and source four doesn't even talk about this bridge and so cannot be used to help establish notability. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/222nd Street Bridge.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As a previous bridge at this location was the longest bridge of the Marsh arch type ever built, notability appears to be established. Notability is not temporary - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I explained in reply to PennySpender, the sources provided do not establish notability; they are unreliable and trivial and do not meet the requirement of significant coverage in reliable sources. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reference #2, at least, is reliable. It cites the longest bridge statement. Therefore, notability is established. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I also do not subscribe to the concept that notability is proven by a trivial mention in a single source. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 11:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Notability is established by the fact that the bridge was the longest Marsh arch bridge ever. The source verifies that notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Less sure about the other bridges nominated along with it, but this one is interesting as described and in an interesting area (OZtoberFEST?). DavidLeeLambert (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The bridge's history makes this notable; besides the references in the article, there's this article about Marsh arch bridges which mentions the Wamego bridge. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.