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. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oakland Expressway Bridge[edit]

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

There seems to be nothing particularly notable about this bridge, and the article makes no case for it. It carries K-4 (Kansas highway) (part of which is called the Oakland Expressway), but there isn't even an article for "Oakland Expressway". As the article says: "Overall, it is a bridge." Pineybranch (talk) 03:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since nominator uses the term notable in its generic sense, there is no argument for deletion here. This seems to be a potential article (it is not an article) without a champion, and a discussion without a cause. There are various deletion and keep arguments to be found, including copyvio, WP:V, and gazetteer issues. I lean to deleting it without prejudice to it being re-created from scratch. The biggest problem is that reliable sources call this the "Oakland Expressway bridge", so this topic might only exist as a typographical error or a neologism. Unscintillating (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a poorly written article. But is it notable? I think that this can be saved with some editing and a little research. We tend to keep bridge articles related to major roadways as it always turns out that there is ample coverage for it in reliable sources (government can't build an outhouse without tens of thousands of reams of paper). It will most likely always be a stub, but that's fine. So please understand that I laugh and shake my head as I type in keep.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As much as I believe this article should be deleted, I have to agree with Paul. A quick search found that the nearest 3 bridges have their own articles (North Kansas Avenue Bridge, Sardou Bridge, and Topeka Boulevard Bridge). This one just needs a little work and its golden. The statement, "Overall, it is a bridge" needs to go, that is for sure. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 21:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a significant bridge. Serving a reference about it is a useful function for Wikipedia, for readers looking it up from many usages in the newspaper about bridge resurfacing projects, about accidents, etc. I am heartily amused by "Overall, it is a bridge" being included in the article, apparently a commentary on Wikipedia's fixation with infrastructure, e.g. bridges, historic sites, roadways, ships, etc. After all, we have a special AFD section devoted to AFDs on transportation-related articles. That's why you're reading this, you are part of the problem! --do ncr am 21:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Overall, it is a bridge" is exactly what I Googled and found eight web sites with this text. I'm not sure that it is worth the time to investigate, but if we keep it, there is a copyvio concern. And with all the agreement here that we should keep it, I don't see a single primary reference to nail down the name. Unscintillating (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- - - "Overall, it is a bridge" was added by an I.P. editor in 2013, and without checking I am 99.9% certain that other usages of that phrase on the internet are derivative, i.e. are copies of Wikipedia. And it is a nonsense statement, and merely five words, for which there cannot be any copyright issue. And it has been removed from the article. Done with that! --do ncr am 19:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've added some bare notability sources, and the name might be in question... is it the "East Topeka Interchange" officially? Locals seem to call it the Oakland Expressway Bridge.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found hits on "Oakland Expressway Bridge", but certainly East Topeka Interchange could be mentioned in the article and set up as a redirect to the article, or anyone very concerned could move/rename the article later, with or without a formal wp:RM process. Again, I voted "Keep" on basis simply that it is clearly a major / significant bridge that is mentioned in sources and i think Wikipedia should cover it, as the I.P. points out we cover all bridges. :) --do ncr am 19:27, 16 August 2017 (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.