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.
KeepWP:GEOFEAT says " ...(bridges and dams) can be notable under Wikipedia's GNG." and I believe this passes GNG as is. The fact that it is named after a very notable Canadian politician means that it will surely get more coverage at its inauguration (no need for a
WP:Crystal ball for that I think). I have moved the page to its official name
Passerelle Flora Footbridge as per the city of Ottawa source and the Mainstreamer source.
Dom from Paris (
talk)
11:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)reply
KeepWP:GEOFEATI added this page because a) There was a link to it on the
Rideau Canal page (the link was not added by me); b) There was an unlinked reference to it on the
Flora MacDonald (politician) page (which I turned into a link); c) The Rideau Canal is a UNESCO cultural heritage site, and all its bridges in Ottawa are in Wikipedia, including
Corktown Footbridge downstream, so it seemed odd not to have a parallel article; d) The span is complete as of this past July (I was planning to add a picture to Commons) and attach it; e) There is additional history (to be added) about this bridge. With regard to the naming: I note that the Corktown Footbridge is also officially Passerelle Corktown Footbridge, yet the Wikipedia article's title is just Corktown Footbridge (and gives the French name as the alternative), hence the naming I used. That would be consistent with the way other geographical features in Ottawa are referenced in Wikipedia. Another example is
Adàwe Crossing, a third footbridge in the area.
Timothy C. Lethbridge (
talk)
12:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Most of the sources in English call it "Passerelle Flora Footbridge" there is no reason to remove the first word. The French version of the town's article on the footbridge also calls it
Passerelle Flora Footbridge. It is
WP:COMMONNAME that decides how the articles are titled. I haven't looked at the other articles but here the common name is clearly Passerelle Flora Footbridge. --
Dom from Paris (
talk)
17:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep per Dom from Paris. Satisfies GNG and part of a UNESCO cultural heritage site. Deletion would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R because we have an article on the Rideau Canal.
James500 (
talk)
05:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. Bridges are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because of who they're named after or what they happen to cross over — and GEOFEAT does not say that bridges get an automatic notability freebie just for existing, either, it says they're considered notable if they clear
WP:GNG on the sourcing. But the sources here are a
primary source from the city's own website, the local neighbourhood pennysaver and a 148-word blurb in the local daily — which means two of them are not support for notability at all, while the third is a start toward getting this over GNG but not substantive enough to carry it over the finish line all by itself as the only GNG-eligible source in play. This doesn't necessarily have to have grand claims of architectural or historic uniqueness to qualify, though those certainly wouldn't hurt — the absolute minimum baseline that it has to meet is clearing GNG on the sources, but these sources aren't clearing GNG.
Bearcat (
talk)
14:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep, based on coverage so far, AGF on assertions of further coverage already available, and while it is also reasonable to expect there will be more coverage as this is completed and opened. For those who prefer to get rid of this as a separate article, a different way forward would be to create a section in
Rideau Canal or a separate article on crossings of the Rideau Canal, where this could possibly be covered instead, to which this could be merged.--
Doncram (
talk)
03:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)reply
What "coverage so far" is demonstrating notability at all? None of the sources present here are good enough as it stands, and nobody's shown any evidence in this discussion of stronger sourcing.
Bearcat (
talk)
22:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)reply
’’’Comment’’’. The article creator should please go ahead and upload photo(s), which would have forestalled any AFD. It is a major, elegant, multimillion dollar bridge befitting the capital city. Photo in one of sources given makes all that clear, at least for Participants of AFDs about major footbridges such as one near San Francisco recently. Many nondescript dumpy concrete slab or girder footbridges are not notable, but major elegant architectural works are. Also please round up a price tag. —
Doncram (
talk)
16:16, 31 August 2018 (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.
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.
KeepWP:GEOFEAT says " ...(bridges and dams) can be notable under Wikipedia's GNG." and I believe this passes GNG as is. The fact that it is named after a very notable Canadian politician means that it will surely get more coverage at its inauguration (no need for a
WP:Crystal ball for that I think). I have moved the page to its official name
Passerelle Flora Footbridge as per the city of Ottawa source and the Mainstreamer source.
Dom from Paris (
talk)
11:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)reply
KeepWP:GEOFEATI added this page because a) There was a link to it on the
Rideau Canal page (the link was not added by me); b) There was an unlinked reference to it on the
Flora MacDonald (politician) page (which I turned into a link); c) The Rideau Canal is a UNESCO cultural heritage site, and all its bridges in Ottawa are in Wikipedia, including
Corktown Footbridge downstream, so it seemed odd not to have a parallel article; d) The span is complete as of this past July (I was planning to add a picture to Commons) and attach it; e) There is additional history (to be added) about this bridge. With regard to the naming: I note that the Corktown Footbridge is also officially Passerelle Corktown Footbridge, yet the Wikipedia article's title is just Corktown Footbridge (and gives the French name as the alternative), hence the naming I used. That would be consistent with the way other geographical features in Ottawa are referenced in Wikipedia. Another example is
Adàwe Crossing, a third footbridge in the area.
Timothy C. Lethbridge (
talk)
12:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Most of the sources in English call it "Passerelle Flora Footbridge" there is no reason to remove the first word. The French version of the town's article on the footbridge also calls it
Passerelle Flora Footbridge. It is
WP:COMMONNAME that decides how the articles are titled. I haven't looked at the other articles but here the common name is clearly Passerelle Flora Footbridge. --
Dom from Paris (
talk)
17:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep per Dom from Paris. Satisfies GNG and part of a UNESCO cultural heritage site. Deletion would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R because we have an article on the Rideau Canal.
James500 (
talk)
05:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. Bridges are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because of who they're named after or what they happen to cross over — and GEOFEAT does not say that bridges get an automatic notability freebie just for existing, either, it says they're considered notable if they clear
WP:GNG on the sourcing. But the sources here are a
primary source from the city's own website, the local neighbourhood pennysaver and a 148-word blurb in the local daily — which means two of them are not support for notability at all, while the third is a start toward getting this over GNG but not substantive enough to carry it over the finish line all by itself as the only GNG-eligible source in play. This doesn't necessarily have to have grand claims of architectural or historic uniqueness to qualify, though those certainly wouldn't hurt — the absolute minimum baseline that it has to meet is clearing GNG on the sources, but these sources aren't clearing GNG.
Bearcat (
talk)
14:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep, based on coverage so far, AGF on assertions of further coverage already available, and while it is also reasonable to expect there will be more coverage as this is completed and opened. For those who prefer to get rid of this as a separate article, a different way forward would be to create a section in
Rideau Canal or a separate article on crossings of the Rideau Canal, where this could possibly be covered instead, to which this could be merged.--
Doncram (
talk)
03:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)reply
What "coverage so far" is demonstrating notability at all? None of the sources present here are good enough as it stands, and nobody's shown any evidence in this discussion of stronger sourcing.
Bearcat (
talk)
22:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)reply
’’’Comment’’’. The article creator should please go ahead and upload photo(s), which would have forestalled any AFD. It is a major, elegant, multimillion dollar bridge befitting the capital city. Photo in one of sources given makes all that clear, at least for Participants of AFDs about major footbridges such as one near San Francisco recently. Many nondescript dumpy concrete slab or girder footbridges are not notable, but major elegant architectural works are. Also please round up a price tag. —
Doncram (
talk)
16:16, 31 August 2018 (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.