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. Sandstein 23:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nominator's rationale is invalid, as there is already enough identifying information (even coordinates) present in the article. The notability guideline for bridges and other infrastructure is not clear, so I will defer to the judgment of others in deciding between redirecting or a full keep. GotRTalk 01:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any evidence that it meets WP:GNG. Few secondary sources. PianoDan (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain unless additional sources are found. Simply listing "not enough information" is not appropriate to explain the article's issues, there are several stubs but yet are notable. It is understandable that sources are going to be Chinese but I did find some English books through Google Books here (lists some information about the bridge but not much), here (also briefly mentions the bridge and the next two pages are omitted which talk about the bridge, according to the index) and here (fourth result from the top, Structural engineering & construction) which also does not provide much information but it seems to start saying "It is the longest span..." which could be relevant or irrelevant to this bridge. This last book also says it is larger than the Chaoyang Arch Bridge in Chongqing. A search at Google News did not provide anything relevant but I assumed this would happen so I searched Google Books first. Looking at the article's photo, the bridge looks like it was rather minor and simple work and probably wasn't a major and expensive project. The article most likely needs someone familiar with Chinese bridges and fluent with Chinese. If the article can't be kept, merging and redirecting to Dagzê, Dagzê would be a good option. I am curious if the book cited at Dagzê, Dagzê, Tibet: a travel survival kit, could mention this bridge but I wouldn't be surprised if it does not. SwisterTwistertalk 06:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most Definitely Keep Who does it hurt to leave this? This bridge is listed in List of longest suspension bridge spans, and by creating this stub, it eventually found a picture, and coordinates, and hopefully someday there'll be more information. Just because there isn't, is no reason to delete it. While I haven't been very active in Wikipedia for a while, the fact that this is even being discussed is beyond my comprehension. What has Wikipedia become? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't keep articles because it doesn't hurt to keep them - we keep them because they're notable. If you want to argue that this article should remain, do so on the merits, according to WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT, not that there's no harm in keeping it. PianoDan (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've got it backwards. We delete articles because they are non-notable, and by keeping them we would encourage similar non-notable cruft. This bridge is one of the 100 longest suspension spans in the world, and the longest in Tibet. It is found on published lists of the longest bridge spans. What do you find non-notable about that? I still don't understand why this is being discussed. Has Wikipedia been taken over by deletion-happy bureaucrats? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 00:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't a hysteretic property. Articles do not have a different bar for deletion once they are created than the bar for creation when they don't exist yet. We delete articles that are not notable for exactly the same reasons we don't create articles that are not notable. PianoDan (talk) 11:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Maybe borderline notability, but the fact it's one of the hundred longest suspension bridge spans tips it for me. If deleted, it would be one of only two of these bridges not to have its own article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You must not have looked closely because the second external link mentions the 1984 establishment and my vote above provided some other references. As I also mentioned in my vote, if the article can't be kept, redirecting would be a good option (it is relevant to the city) rather than deleting it. SwisterTwistertalk 19:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment[1] is usable for the specifications/statistics of the bridge, and also directly makes a mention of a book with some information on this bridge - there are passing mentions in that book. [2] There will also be information here: [3], and there is mention of it here: [4]. There are almost certainly countless Chinese, Nepalese or Tibetan sources on this as well - someone with more access to these books and those foreign sources will be able to expand this article quite dramatically. I question whether either the nominator, or the delete voters, have either read WP:BEFORE or truly looked for sources - all I did was search Dazi Bridge on Google and found these, without any specialist knowledge. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The second source makes a passing mention (trivial) and the third source states that it is based on Wikipedia articles (unreliable). Page 304 in the forth reference by R. Scott does mention that the bridge "became China's longest single span in late 1984." FunnyPika! 22:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- surely a 500m suspension bridge is long enough to be of interest, hence notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - The nominatior's "rationaile" isn't a policy-based deletion argument and, in fact, isn't a call for deletion at all. - The BushrangerOne ping only 23:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I believe you mean "Keep", as there is no speedy keep reason here. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"it needs more information" is not a deletion rationaile, therefore WP:SK1 should have been applied. - The BushrangerOne ping only 22:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please read all of SK1: "...and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted." By the time you requested a speedy keep, two other editors had !voted delete. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided - We do not have substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Yes, this bridge shows up in a list article. So what? If the only thing noteworthy about it is its length, redirect this to the list. The database listing (currently linked in the article) proves that it exists and a few reliable sources mention -- in passing -- that the bridge is the longest of its type in Tibet or China (depending on the source; feel free to have heated arguments about this on the talk page). What we seem to have is a permanent stub. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Redirect. Per WP:GEOFEAT, "Artificial features related to infrastructure (for example, bridges and dams) can be notable under Wikipedia's GNG. Where their notability is unclear, they generally redirect to more general articles or to a named natural feature that prompted their creation, e.g., to an article about the notable road it carries or the notable obstacle it spans." The problem is what to redirect to. I don't see in the sparse sources any indication of the road it carries or the obstacle it spans. (This problem, of course, is entirely consistent with the lack of notability here.) - SummerPhD (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It will certainly pass GNG with Tibetan, Chinese or whatever sources. We need an editor with access to these. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see no basis for your assumption that "sources must exist. If, however, those sources do materialize in the future, the ONE sentence in this article should be easy enough to rebuild... - SummerPhD (talk) 01:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The bridge does not have the year completed and it also does not have the main span meters or main span feet. --Starship9000 (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This should be marked as a comment rather than a bolded "delete". That you want it deleted is implied by your nomination. LadyofShalott 03:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of these are even REMOTELY reasons for deletion... Have you ever read any guidelines on Wikipedia at all? Lukeno94 (talk) 08:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have stricken the repeat !vote, without comment on the argument/counter-argument here. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The rationale by the user nominating deletion does not call for deletion. This is a very notable bridge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.212.29.226 (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC) — 150.212.29.226 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Whether or not you agree with the nominator's reasoning, others are arguing the bridge is not notable. Your claim that it is is meaningless without explanation. Please explain which guideline(s) you believe it meets. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if it's the biggest bridge in Tibet, then sources will blatantly exist. As I said before, we need an editor with access to Chinese and Tibetan sources on this. Also, I've presented several English sources myself in this, so I have absolutely no idea why people haven't attempted to evaluate those... Using Google Translate, I've found these: [5][6][7][8][9][10]. I wish people would actually bother to look for things - not all of these are detailed, but then, I don't speak Chinese, so Google Translate is all I've used. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Keep. The second of the above sources claims it as the oldest cable stayed bridge in (contentiously) China & an important bit of infrastructure, certainly the article needs expansion &c but being a stub is no reason to delete.TheLongTone (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its instructive to take a look at the nominators talk page, a long list of deletion notices for articles created, some on eye-wateringly trivial subjects. Imo this afd nomination is pure mischief making.TheLongTone (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. The second of Lukeno94's Chinese links certainly looks reliable and substantial enough (though a couple of the others look to come from blogs or personal websites), and could decently extend the article by another sentence or so. Also, the BBC seem to have had a short item on the opening of the bridge back in 1984. Abd participants here have not been sufficiently inventive to try for alternative versions of the bridge's name. GBooks searches on Taktse Zamchen and Taktse bridge, using what seems to be a pre-Pinyin transcription of the place name, each seem to give a few at least slightly usable references. However, as the total information we get for the moment is unlikely to amount to more than a few sentences, I see no harm in merging to Dagzê, Dagzê, where it is situated, or the Kyi River, which it crosses. PWilkinson (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PWilkinson: Just curious: Can you read Chinese? If not, how does the source "look" reliable? - SummerPhD (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep As per Bushranger. Note that in practice delete !votes do not per se prevent speedy keeps. Unscintillating (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It could be a Speedy Keep per the second rule of Speedy Keeps. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We're probably close to (or at) a snow keep, but not a speedy 2: "... and (since bad motivations of the nominator don't have direct bearing on the validity of the nomination) nobody unrelated recommends deleting it." - SummerPhD (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The only notable thing I found was in Lukeno94's sixth reference at chinatibetnews.com - that it was the longest suspension bridge in China at the time (1984). Other mentions were either unreliable or trivial. Tried searching via simplified Chinese and pinyin ("德庆桥", "德庆吊桥" and "dazi bridge"). FunnyPika! 22:07, 18 January 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.