Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orwell Bridge (Dublin)

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 merge to River Dodder. Wifione ^Message 11:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orwell Bridge (Dublin)

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

I don't see any indication this bridge is independently notable short of its inclusion in the atlases or the family story of its creation. The closest guideline I can find is Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Streets#Notability guidelines (WP:BRIDGE doesn't have one) and this clearly fails that. Shadowjams (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Too many other projects of similar status that should be deleted before this one, such as the ones on the bottom of the project page. 71.246.200.190 (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OTHERSTUFF exists is an argument that's not very compelling in AfD debates. Are there any sources that indicate it's notability beyond merely mentioning it? Shadowjams (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to River Dodder, possibly creating River Dodder#Crossings. A list of crossings as part of the river article is fully appropriate; the bridge itself, however, is a run-of-the-mill concrete bridge. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per The Bushranger. No indication why this bridge is notable. Just the regular type of bridge you'll find anywhere. Not designed by a famous architect, not an interesting history attached to the bridge, no reliable sources; just WP:MILL S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 04:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Idependently notable having been written about in an imporant book on the history of Dublin (Chapters of Dublin). As pointed out there is no guideline for Irish bridges, there is clearly an interest in them - http://www.dublin.ie/forums/showthread.php?15242-The-Bridges-on-Dublin-Rivers-and-Canals . The first bridge was built in the mid 1800's so clearly there was a more interesting structure than the current one. More content will be added once additional sources are identified. - User:Deitel55 —Preceding undated comment added 21:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- There is no guideline for Irish bridges, but there is the WP:GNG. Is there sufficient information to establish notability? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per The Bushranger. Not notable enough to have its own article but definitely rates a mention in the River Dodder article. Snappy (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to List of Dublin bridges and tunnels. This article has a vast number of red links, which need to be delinked. This article is unlikely to be expanded and would be better dealt with as part of the entry on it in that article. On the other hand, it might be useful to split that article, merging its sections respectively to the rivers etc crossed. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There appears to be a lot written about the bridge under its original name "WALDRON'S BRIDGE" that isn't fully accessible on the web, like the third book in this link - [1]. WP:GNG requires the existence of in-depth coverage, not that it's hyperlinked in the article or an afd.--Oakshade (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. While not sufficiently notable itself, merging the referenced content into the River Dodder crossing is appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:02, 20 February 2012 (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.