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 of the debate was keep. The argument for keeping, both here and on the talk page, the references list, and the raw numbers (for all I know) indicate that this is not an article for laying down and avoiding. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pghbridges.com[edit]

A very nice site, but notability is nonexistant and fails WP:WEB on all three counts. Sorry, WP:NOT a repository of links. Delete. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 18:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:WEB. -Rebelguys2 18:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Discussion from this point has been refactored to the Talk page for this AfD. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 23:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the refactoring was incorrect but I'm not going to get into a revert war over it. However the points made in it are important, and people commenting on this reference work, as well as the closing admin, should take them into account, in particular the point about WP:WEB not necessarily applying in this case since the encyclopedic nature of this site is not measurable using those guidelines. ++Lar: t/c 00:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also beleive moving the talk out of here was wrong. The whole point of this page is for discusion, much more so than voting. A closing admin should review the discussion as much as the votes. For instance, the topic of a move should be here, so that if there's a delete result, the closing admin is aware that there's a desire to move the contenets outside of article space. --Rob 07:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Alexa rank 1,108,907 (unless we want to have two million articles on WP and half of them about websites). Ruby 20:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Where'd you get that rank? Perhaps from the article itself, where **I** put it, as part of explaining why it's not relevant? Please consider giving this one a bit more thought and actually address the rationale I gave. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 22:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, as per nom. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change of vote: move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Bridges/List of bridge reference sites subpage, as per Rob (the first one). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ruby. Stifle 09:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --kingboyk 16:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks like a worthwhile site. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 20:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move (without redirect) to Wikipedia:WikiProject Bridges/List of bridge reference sites, adding info on other such reference sites. I think currently the mentions of this site, are not sufficient to warrant an article. The reason is, we don't have sufficient reliable information to make substantial article on the topic. It will either remain a stub, or it will be repeat POV of the site itself. If future publications write about this site (in a substantial manner), then I would support an article. This information is useful in project space because one can talk freely about, and what usage it has for relevant editors. Basically, info on this site is useful to us (Wikipedia) but not our readers, so lets put it where it belongs for now. --Rob 21:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to subpage per... er... the other Rob... and noting that I am going to change my sig name shortly. —Rob (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elaborating on this vote... just because it's a key, important reference to an article, or a set of articles, doesn't necessarily mean that it's encyclopedic. This is even disregarding the store on its front page. Any project certainly could use a repository of references and detailed writeups on them, but an article is a bit much. —LpAngelRob (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now that quotes from verifiable third-party sources have been added. Just because the site isn't notable per WP:WEB doesn't mean it can't be encyclopedic for other reasons. The article is a mess right now, but once this nomination is closed and no-one's trying to prove a point anymore we can rewrite it into a perfectly good (if short) article about a perfectly good (if mildly obscure) reference source. And besides, this is clearly not linkspam. Exactly what would deleting this accomplish — saving paper? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a reference site which to me sets it a little apart. The addition of the 3rd party sources was a good move. The subject is significant if a little obscure, this is the sort of thing that gives Wikipedia it's depth and color. It could be a well rounded article with a little cleanup. Rx StrangeLove 22:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 00:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move (without redirect) to Wikipedia:WikiProject Bridges/List of bridge reference sites. NoSeptember ^talk 13:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As it turns out, there already IS an article for structurae.de it was just written without the .de on the end: Structurae. Does that change anyone's view at all? Alexa rank for Structurae.de is WELL below the WP:WEB guideline cutoff, at about 78,000... I see no clamor to allow all the websites between 1000 and 77000 to have articles... because, the article about structurae.de is not about it as a website, it's about it as as database of information ++Lar: t/c 22:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Like Ilmari above I see no benefit in deleting it. It's verifiable, seems to be reasonably comprehensive, looks useful and certainly hasn't been listed in some effort to gain notability. Leith p 22:24, 30 January 2006 (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.