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.
Keep. tentatively. Has
wp:BEFORE been performed? No assertion in the nomination. It's not just any ordinary pedestrian bridge, it is high design, and it was renamed, generating more coverage presumably. The article already has several sources, including Structurae database entry in external links. --
Doncram (
talk)
08:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I haven't searched yet for available online sources, but the alternative name should be checked, too:
That is helpful, thank you. The main point I see in reply is that while GNG requires "sources", where sources means more than one source, the contributions of significant coverage can come mostly from one WP:RS source, such as the regional newspaper the San Jose Mercury News.
Unscintillating (
talk)
12:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)reply
It's a $14.8 million
[1] 500 ft bridge. It is a big deal, and covered in numerous articles. There is a reason why someone chose to create a Wikipedia article on this topic, as opposed to the absence of articles on many non-descript or ugly concrete beam pedestrian bridges. Perhaps the deletion nominator should consider, if there's a Wikipedia article, maybe indeed there's a reason for it. --
Doncram (
talk)
16:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The price tag doesn't establish notability. Even worse, are you really going to argue that because someone wrote an article, it must be notable. That kind of circular logic makes no sense at all.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
17:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Huh? That doesn't seem like a reason. Sure, that other pedestrian bridge may indeed be notable. Offhand the one source doesn't inspire me to create an article about it, unlike the Mary Avenue Bridge one, which is striking on a world-wide level, but you're right that if wp:GNG is met then it is notable too. --
Doncram (
talk)
17:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Perhaps some articles in ENR are reliable sources, but the article youMorphenniel linked to is not sufficiently independent from the construction company to satisfy
WP:GNG. 02:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC) Edited to correct Morphenniel posted ENR article
Billhpike (
talk)
03:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I didn't ask a question here about an article I linked to. Publishers don't lose their independence just because they choose articles written by subject matter experts.
Unscintillating (
talk)
03:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)reply
"Roadshow: New bicycle bridge over I-280 is striking span". San Jose Mercury News. August 30, 2009. Retrieved 2018-01-15. "It's a striking, iconic image that will become a landmark for Cupertino and Silicon Valley," said John Brazil, head of the bicycle and pedestrian... The cost was high. At $15 million, it's believed to be the most expensive span of its type in the South Bay.
Modern Steel Construction. American Institute of Steel Construction. 2008. Retrieved 2018-01-15. The Mary Avenue Bridge was designed to behave elastically under the design-level seismic event, and the unique cross section proved to have excellent wind stability, far exceeding design requirements.
Attila Nagy (May 19, 2014).
"15 of world's best urban bike infrastructures". Gizmodo. Retrieved 2018-01-15. here is a selection of state-of-the-art bike infrastructures, which pave the way for a better biking world...The Don Burnett bicycle pedestrian bridge (also known as Mary Avenue Bridge) in Cupertino, California, opened in 2009.
Delete- Looks like a really nice bridge, but I don't see anything notable about it, just some local press coverage. The
Helen Putnam award doesn't seem to be particularly notable and being that the source says 2019 Award Winning Entries, I think those are actually nominations (either that or someone has a flux capacitor). The assumptions that the nominator acted in
WP:BADFAITH are uncalled for.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
02:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The WP:NPA link states that one of the examples of a personal attack is "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." So first of all, where are the diffs for these "constant" and "countless AfDs", and next, how is the statement "inappropriate"?
Unscintillating (
talk)
03:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I'm not going to argue with you here. If you feel its a personal attack, take it to the proper venue. There is also no reason for me to show you diffs of your own editing, you know what you wrote.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
03:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)reply
To meet the demands of Unscintillating (because that is the ultimate goal of AfD), the article fails
WP:GNG because independent in-depth coverage is lacking.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
20:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - while it is true that GNG does not depend on sources currently included in the article, searches do not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, secondary sources to show notability. When editors make this statement, without including those sources, their !votes become irrelevant. Even local coverage is scanty.
Onel5969TT me02:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Matthew Wilson (July 1, 2010).
"The man behind some of Cupertino's largest landmarks is leaving". Retrieved 2018-01-16. April 30, 2009, when the Mary Avenue Bicycle Footbridge opened to the public...$14.8 million bridge project...The bridge was slated to be a standard concrete structure, but that proved to almost double its estimated construction cost...ultimately a steel bridge was built.
Keep Seems to me to meet the notability criteria and the article is otherwise OKish. I'm bothered about the thought that local sources are to be disregarded. Is this somewhere in the guidelines or is it merely someone's point of view? If there is a suitable pointer to the guidance I'll certainly reconsider.
Thincat (
talk)
23:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Sorry guys, but I'm just not seeing it. It's a minor route, it's a very typical design for modern wide-span footbridges. If it's a 'landmark', then maybe, but that needs sources on that basis.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
21:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - According to sourcing, this bridge is the only cable stayed bridge over a highway in California, which makes it notable architecturally. Not only that, its success using steel instead of concrete has led to at least one other California city (San Jose) referencing it in its own bridge proposal [
[3]], so there's lasting notability, which meets
WP:NOTTEMPORARY. I added a couple of sources, explaining the name change and the architectural notability. Info about the bridge could certainly be added to
Interstate 280 (California)#Route description, but not as a replacement for this article, because there wouldn't be an easy way for the info to be found over there. If the keep momentum continues and this is closed as keep, the article needs to be moved to its new name.
TimTempleton(talk)(cont)00:45, 23 January 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.
Keep. tentatively. Has
wp:BEFORE been performed? No assertion in the nomination. It's not just any ordinary pedestrian bridge, it is high design, and it was renamed, generating more coverage presumably. The article already has several sources, including Structurae database entry in external links. --
Doncram (
talk)
08:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I haven't searched yet for available online sources, but the alternative name should be checked, too:
That is helpful, thank you. The main point I see in reply is that while GNG requires "sources", where sources means more than one source, the contributions of significant coverage can come mostly from one WP:RS source, such as the regional newspaper the San Jose Mercury News.
Unscintillating (
talk)
12:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)reply
It's a $14.8 million
[1] 500 ft bridge. It is a big deal, and covered in numerous articles. There is a reason why someone chose to create a Wikipedia article on this topic, as opposed to the absence of articles on many non-descript or ugly concrete beam pedestrian bridges. Perhaps the deletion nominator should consider, if there's a Wikipedia article, maybe indeed there's a reason for it. --
Doncram (
talk)
16:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The price tag doesn't establish notability. Even worse, are you really going to argue that because someone wrote an article, it must be notable. That kind of circular logic makes no sense at all.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
17:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Huh? That doesn't seem like a reason. Sure, that other pedestrian bridge may indeed be notable. Offhand the one source doesn't inspire me to create an article about it, unlike the Mary Avenue Bridge one, which is striking on a world-wide level, but you're right that if wp:GNG is met then it is notable too. --
Doncram (
talk)
17:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Perhaps some articles in ENR are reliable sources, but the article youMorphenniel linked to is not sufficiently independent from the construction company to satisfy
WP:GNG. 02:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC) Edited to correct Morphenniel posted ENR article
Billhpike (
talk)
03:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I didn't ask a question here about an article I linked to. Publishers don't lose their independence just because they choose articles written by subject matter experts.
Unscintillating (
talk)
03:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)reply
"Roadshow: New bicycle bridge over I-280 is striking span". San Jose Mercury News. August 30, 2009. Retrieved 2018-01-15. "It's a striking, iconic image that will become a landmark for Cupertino and Silicon Valley," said John Brazil, head of the bicycle and pedestrian... The cost was high. At $15 million, it's believed to be the most expensive span of its type in the South Bay.
Modern Steel Construction. American Institute of Steel Construction. 2008. Retrieved 2018-01-15. The Mary Avenue Bridge was designed to behave elastically under the design-level seismic event, and the unique cross section proved to have excellent wind stability, far exceeding design requirements.
Attila Nagy (May 19, 2014).
"15 of world's best urban bike infrastructures". Gizmodo. Retrieved 2018-01-15. here is a selection of state-of-the-art bike infrastructures, which pave the way for a better biking world...The Don Burnett bicycle pedestrian bridge (also known as Mary Avenue Bridge) in Cupertino, California, opened in 2009.
Delete- Looks like a really nice bridge, but I don't see anything notable about it, just some local press coverage. The
Helen Putnam award doesn't seem to be particularly notable and being that the source says 2019 Award Winning Entries, I think those are actually nominations (either that or someone has a flux capacitor). The assumptions that the nominator acted in
WP:BADFAITH are uncalled for.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
02:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The WP:NPA link states that one of the examples of a personal attack is "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." So first of all, where are the diffs for these "constant" and "countless AfDs", and next, how is the statement "inappropriate"?
Unscintillating (
talk)
03:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I'm not going to argue with you here. If you feel its a personal attack, take it to the proper venue. There is also no reason for me to show you diffs of your own editing, you know what you wrote.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
03:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)reply
To meet the demands of Unscintillating (because that is the ultimate goal of AfD), the article fails
WP:GNG because independent in-depth coverage is lacking.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
20:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - while it is true that GNG does not depend on sources currently included in the article, searches do not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, secondary sources to show notability. When editors make this statement, without including those sources, their !votes become irrelevant. Even local coverage is scanty.
Onel5969TT me02:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Matthew Wilson (July 1, 2010).
"The man behind some of Cupertino's largest landmarks is leaving". Retrieved 2018-01-16. April 30, 2009, when the Mary Avenue Bicycle Footbridge opened to the public...$14.8 million bridge project...The bridge was slated to be a standard concrete structure, but that proved to almost double its estimated construction cost...ultimately a steel bridge was built.
Keep Seems to me to meet the notability criteria and the article is otherwise OKish. I'm bothered about the thought that local sources are to be disregarded. Is this somewhere in the guidelines or is it merely someone's point of view? If there is a suitable pointer to the guidance I'll certainly reconsider.
Thincat (
talk)
23:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Sorry guys, but I'm just not seeing it. It's a minor route, it's a very typical design for modern wide-span footbridges. If it's a 'landmark', then maybe, but that needs sources on that basis.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
21:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - According to sourcing, this bridge is the only cable stayed bridge over a highway in California, which makes it notable architecturally. Not only that, its success using steel instead of concrete has led to at least one other California city (San Jose) referencing it in its own bridge proposal [
[3]], so there's lasting notability, which meets
WP:NOTTEMPORARY. I added a couple of sources, explaining the name change and the architectural notability. Info about the bridge could certainly be added to
Interstate 280 (California)#Route description, but not as a replacement for this article, because there wouldn't be an easy way for the info to be found over there. If the keep momentum continues and this is closed as keep, the article needs to be moved to its new name.
TimTempleton(talk)(cont)00:45, 23 January 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.