Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suspended deck bridge

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 speedy close as mistaken nomination. This article is the one that used to be at Suspension bridge - if that's the consensus title, this should be moved back there, not deleted.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suspended deck bridge[edit]

Suspended deck bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Move to Suspension Bridge and Delete on the basis of WP:No original research.

  1. Suspended deck bridge is not a bridge type. This can be verfied by searching google and google books for the full string. Most reference entries that come up refer to arch bridges with suspended decks. Some (like the first one in google books) refer to truss bridges with suspended decks.
  2. The article was created by an editor who took text in a hatnote from the article on suspension bridges (fixed version here) to mean that this was a bridge type of its own. Text was moved from the article to create this new article.

Since no verifiable reference can be found that says a Suspended deck bridge is a type of bridge, it is therefore original research to create a Wikipedia article about it. The only question is where to move the material.
A move discussion has been started, but I have elevated it to here so that the page is deleted upon completion of that discussion. Three editors have already commented there to move the material back to the suspension bridge article. ¢Spender1983 (talk) 07:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually I'm able to google and find verifiable sources (not derived from Wikipedia) which do use the term. For instance. Tedickey (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The site you provide is likely considered a questionable source under the WP:Sources policy. The site is tourism related. The subject is engineering and technology related. Can you provide any scholarly sources? - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Move" is a vote to keep, so in conflict with "delete". --Una Smith (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain. The article is named Suspended deck bridge. Not one reliable source has been produced to say that this is an actual bridge type. That means that the article is original research. The article needs to be deleted. This is so that we do not have a bunch of third graders running to their teacher saying that "the Golden Gate Bridge is not a suspension bridge, it's a Suspended deck bridge and Wikipedia says so!"
"Move and redirect" will not prevent this from occuring. Only "Move and delete". That is my nomination. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; there is no original research here. --Una Smith (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there are no sources to prove that this is even a valid type of bridge. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOR is hardly a reason for deleting an article about a type of bridge. Figure out what you want to name the article, and redirect if this is not the preferred name, but deletion is not part of the equation. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I can't see any problems with this Jenuk1985 | Talk 18:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems to be a modern type of suspension bridge according to this and this. I found several more as well. Wperdue (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
Both of these sources is derived from WP. ;-( --Salix (talk): 19:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back into suspension bridge This seems to me a case where there definitions of "suspension bridge" is fuzzy in the real world. The lay usage is to mean suspensions bridges which have suspended decks, however a more pedantic definition would include the various types of suspension bridge, not all of which have suspended decks, (Britannica). "Suspended-deck" is defiantly a common term in bridge construction[1]. However it is not synonymous with suspension bridges as you can get suspended decks on arch bridges.
Following the principal of least surprise when someone goes to suspension bridge they probably want to read about those with suspended decks, but it does seem necessary to include the other types.
If we are to keep it as a seperate article I would prefer it to be Suspended-deck suspension bridge which does define it well and distinguishes it from suspended deck arch bridges.--Salix (talk): 20:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but Rename This is a valid and distinct sub-type of suspension bridge, but the article name is wrong. These bridges (from the description) are like the Severn Bridge in that they use a catenary (chain or cable) to span between towers, then suspend the deck from verticals below this. In contrast, the nearby Second Severn Crossing is also a "suspension bridge with a suspended deck", but this type is a cable-stayed bridge and each supporting cable runs directly from the towers, without the single large catenary and the vertical suspensors. Re-naming the article to reflect the crucial nature of the catenary should make this clear, and show how widespread the topic's subject is. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. There are two related move proposals:
Talk:Suspended deck bridge#Requested move, to move Suspended deck bridge to Suspended-deck suspension bridge
Talk:Suspension bridge types#Requested move, to move Suspension bridge types to Suspension bridge.
--Una Smith (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In light of the recent moves of these articles, and the recent requested moves on the article talk pages, deletion is clearly not the answer to this content dispute/article title dispute. It seems to me the article talk pages are the place to decide the correct titles and distribution of the content in articles. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  00:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Your keep means that it is okay to create article titles that do not meet WP:Verifiability as long as they redirect somewhere? - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explanation for nomination as delete: In addition to creating a new type of bridge out of thin air, this editor seems to refuse to listen to concensus on the talk pages. Only one user agreed with the changes that he is making throughout the project pages: User:Tedickey, someone who has not listed himself on the WikiProject Bridges page. FOUR users that are listed on that project page have given the input to revert and move the material back to Suspension bridge (currently a redirect based on the changes made to create this article). They are SamuelWantman (here), Trulystand700 (here), Leonard G. (here), and myself (here). A four-to-one ratio is pretty much concensus by any standard. However, User:Una Smith continues to propogate this change throughout the bridge articles.
Since Category the title Category:Suspended deck bridges and the article title Suspended deck bridge do not meet WP:Verifiability and were therefore original research, I considered this forum to be the quickest location to come to a resolution on the matter, i.e. DELETE the new title and MOVE the material back to Suspension bridge, where is was for years until just a few days ago. The Suspension bridge article is listed as a top priority for the WikiProject and I considered it vital to get to this resolution quickly. I would gladly listen to any advice from administators or experienced users on a better process for resolution. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "suspended deck bridge" is not the correct page name for this article, but as others have said deleting the article is no solution. The solution is to move the article. I propose to move it to Suspended-deck suspension bridge. See Talk:Suspended deck bridge#Requested move. --Una Smith (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Suspended deck" in any form would still be a problem, as that's not a widely used term for them, hence the claims of "fabrication" and WP:OR from those whose only reference is a single Google search. All suspension bridges suspend their decks (even ribbons do, they just manage it in the same horizontal alignment), the difference is in how and what from. Even regarding vertical suspensors as the differentiating factor would be a problem, as suspension arch bridges (Tyne Bridge form) may also them. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article belongs under Suspension bridge with a redirect from Suspended-deck suspension bridge. This is the format that it has been in for several years. That is this request, DELETE Suspended deck bridge and MOVE back to Suspension bridge.
The suggested solution (under WP:PRECISION) to place content under Suspended-deck suspension bridge is not acceptable under WP:PRIMARY. Before it would be considered acceptable, the editor needs to find the references that support this name as primary for the subject. He will not find that in the bridge engineering community. Even though the term Suspended-deck suspension bridge is more exact, it is EXTREMELY RARE for a bridge engineer to use the term. For every one time he might find it used, I can locate one hundred scholarly papers that simply say Suspension bridge. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 11:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARY applies to sources; the relevant guideline that applies to article titles and page names is WP:PRECISION. Wikipedia is not a textbook on road bridges, for which suspended decks are the norm so need not be specified. Because Wikipedia deals with all types of suspension bridge, the article about this type of suspension bridge needs a more precise name. --Una Smith (talk) 14:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rationale for keeping (not deleting). The hatnote on the article the first time I read it (version):
This article is concerned with a particular type of suspension bridge, the suspended-deck type.
(Bold in the original.) See? The article is about suspended-deck suspension bridges. The hatnote was added in February 2007 (diff). The article formerly was at Suspended-deck suspension bridge. It was unilaterally moved from there in 2005, and since then has been subject to ongoing additions and deletions of content about suspension bridges of other types (hence the hatnote; see also Talk:Suspended deck bridge). To me, that instability is good reason to return the article to its original page name and to make Suspension bridge an article about suspension bridges in general, starting with the content now at Suspension bridge types. --Una Smith (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reliable source that calls the Golden Gate Bridge or any other suspension bridge a suspended-deck suspension bridge? Is there a reliable source which defines a suspension bridge as anything other than a suspended-deck version? (Please read the section in WP:SOURCES to make certain that the source is reliable and not questionable, i.e. the source should be scholarly and technical, and formally published.)
This is the point. You have not provided any sources that do this. To date, your main assertion for these changes has been the hatnote in the previous version of the Suspension bridge article. Wikipedia cannot be considered a source.
Without reliable sources, you are making this stuff up.
Suspension bridge is the proper term; suspended-deck suspension bridge only makes sense to a small percentage of bridge engineers, and even they don't use on a regular basis (which is why that title has existed these past few years as only a redirect). - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I pointed out one, for instance, which you ignored. Rather than following up on it, you've become rather rude (again). Tedickey (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article, under the name Suspension bridge, has existed since 2002.[2] Would someone please close this AfD? This is silly. I hope everyone understands that over a thousand edits spanning the course of almost seven years would vanish if this article was deleted. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article, but rename it back to Suspension bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and do the renaming discussion somewhere else until this is fully decided. "Suspension bridge" is a basic term and a core topic that needs to be discussed in Wikipedia's coverage of bridges. I'm not sure how "suspended deck bridge" came up as a title. Regardless, deleting this article and its history would delete a core topic that we need to cover bridges. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:11, 30 March 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Suspended_deck_bridge&oldid=1138809067"