- 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 no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 12:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Port Phillip Bay Bridge ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
- Better search might be: google
A non-existent bridge that is being proposed by the creator of this article. There is no reliable secondary source coverage of this proposal. By the author's own account here, he has been proposing this bridge since 1998. This article appears to be a promotional effort or advertising, or both, in conjunction with this personal proposal. In the article itself, he states the proposal is "not a serious proposition at the moment." Ewen Douglas ( talk) 21:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ewen Douglas ( talk) 01:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Comment. This is a legit topic as an actually historically significant proposal that still comes up from time to time, but it needs to actually document that - this guy's iteration of it is not itself notable and none of this content is actually helpful for an encyclopedia article. I am not opposed to responding with WP:TNT in the case of the current article but I would be strongly opposed to any finding that it's not a notable topic should someone recreate it and do it properly. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 22:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - Just to clear things up. The original author isn't the one proposing the bridge. The diff provided to my talk page and recent edits to the article are from a former CEO of the company who worked on the bridge proposal, and he's here some 20 years later offering his entire proposal text and images into the public domain. I'm undecided whether this topic warrants an article or not. It was a big discussion point across media at the time but again, nothing ever came of it and probably never will. -- Longhair\ talk 22:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- Weak delete Basically WP:TNT ie WP:DUEWEIGHT. Initial indications are notable in general re a bridge, but the current article is one of several infrastructure proposals, including a tunnel? Articles needs to discuss all such proposals with due weight. Aoziwe ( talk) 11:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - redirect suggestion: It turns out there's an article at The Rip already (yes, it's about the stretch of water that this non-existent bridge would cross). It does not, at present, include any info about potential crossing infrastructure, be that a bridge, tunnel, what-have-you. Suggest that this article redirect to a new section in The Rip that would cover such crossing propositions, similar to what Aoziwe ( talk) suggested, just not as a stand-alone article. Ewen Douglas ( talk) 20:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- I've started that section
here. If anyone has anything to add, that would be helpful. I think a redirect to there would be appropriate, along with a line or two summarizing what the author of this article has submitted.
Ewen Douglas (
talk)
17:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- I oppose this: as the current article makes clear, a bay bridge would not likely cross the actual The Rip because of engineering reasons. Redirecting there just adds a layer of confusion. Just delete the thing so that a coherent article might be written one day, rather than redirecting it to a place it won't cross. Aoziwe's suggestion would be much better covered by a
Port Phillip Bay crossing proposals or something of that ilk.
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
21:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- How's that? Any crossing, be it bridge or tunnel, would cross The Rip. Just because the current article says one route is "unlikely" doesn't mean a layer of confusion is added. Another proposed crossing would still cross The Rip. Ewen Douglas ( talk) 01:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- For the record, there's also nowhere near enough material to justify creating an article called
Port Phillip Bay crossing proposals or anything like it. I'm not 100% opposed to a redirect to
Port Phillip rather than
The Rip, but the
Port Phillip article doen't have any material discussing crossing proposals either. If you'd like to add some there, I'm certain a redirect to there would be a viable option.
Ewen Douglas (
talk)
01:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- As this article makes clear, you can't have a crossing at The Rip without causing major issues at Point Nepean, which is basically as heavily protected an area as you can get on environmental, cultural and heritage grounds. You've not cited any source that suggests that any serious proposal involves any kind of crossing there. I don't understand the determination to redirect an article to a place that any bridge definitely won't be. A
Port Phillip redirect would be vastly more logical (and you put the information in The Rip article, so it can easily be moved), but it's still a worse outcome than just deleting the thing so it stays as a redlink for future article creation.
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
01:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm confused. Three days ago you wrote "I would be strongly opposed to any finding that it's not a notable topic". Now you've said there's no "source that suggests that any serious proposal involves any kind of crossing there" and you're arguing for deletion. Anyway, there is one source discussing a crossing there, that I already added to The Rip article, and
here's another. I'm not saying the article shouldn't be deleted, I'm just saying a redirect seems appropriate. There's not going to be an article at this name - "Port Phillip Bay Bridge" - unless a bridge is built. If your arguments are correct, then
Port Phillip Bay crossing proposals would be a more appropriate title. What's the upside of a straight deletion?
Ewen Douglas (
talk)
15:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- There is obviously a recurring bridge proposal, which is obviously notable, the exact location of which depends upon the proposal, but a direct crossing at The Rip being unlikely - and which those sources don't contradict (they just say bridge). You're the one with the obsession with The Rip and I just don't get the enthusiasm -
Port Phillip would be a much more obvious redirect target if you absolutely must.
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
18:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- "obviously a recurring bridge proposal, which is obviously notable" - I don't agree that that's obvious at all. Where's the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Also, I have no obsession with The Rip - but any proposals for "Port Phillip Bay Bridge" (or tunnel) were proposals that would cross at The Rip. Show me one proposal that's crossing somewhere besides The Rip and you might have a case for a redirect to Port Phillip. But there aren't any, are there? Ewen Douglas ( talk) 21:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- There is obviously a recurring bridge proposal, which is obviously notable, the exact location of which depends upon the proposal, but a direct crossing at The Rip being unlikely - and which those sources don't contradict (they just say bridge). You're the one with the obsession with The Rip and I just don't get the enthusiasm -
Port Phillip would be a much more obvious redirect target if you absolutely must.
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
18:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm confused. Three days ago you wrote "I would be strongly opposed to any finding that it's not a notable topic". Now you've said there's no "source that suggests that any serious proposal involves any kind of crossing there" and you're arguing for deletion. Anyway, there is one source discussing a crossing there, that I already added to The Rip article, and
here's another. I'm not saying the article shouldn't be deleted, I'm just saying a redirect seems appropriate. There's not going to be an article at this name - "Port Phillip Bay Bridge" - unless a bridge is built. If your arguments are correct, then
Port Phillip Bay crossing proposals would be a more appropriate title. What's the upside of a straight deletion?
Ewen Douglas (
talk)
15:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- As this article makes clear, you can't have a crossing at The Rip without causing major issues at Point Nepean, which is basically as heavily protected an area as you can get on environmental, cultural and heritage grounds. You've not cited any source that suggests that any serious proposal involves any kind of crossing there. I don't understand the determination to redirect an article to a place that any bridge definitely won't be. A
Port Phillip redirect would be vastly more logical (and you put the information in The Rip article, so it can easily be moved), but it's still a worse outcome than just deleting the thing so it stays as a redlink for future article creation.
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
01:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- I oppose this: as the current article makes clear, a bay bridge would not likely cross the actual The Rip because of engineering reasons. Redirecting there just adds a layer of confusion. Just delete the thing so that a coherent article might be written one day, rather than redirecting it to a place it won't cross. Aoziwe's suggestion would be much better covered by a
Port Phillip Bay crossing proposals or something of that ilk.
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
21:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- I've started that section
here. If anyone has anything to add, that would be helpful. I think a redirect to there would be appropriate, along with a line or two summarizing what the author of this article has submitted.
Ewen Douglas (
talk)
17:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Anyone know which of the sources might actually pass WP:GNG as opposed to being primary government documents? SportingFlyer talk 08:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- I think there are some as per my suggested "Better search might be:" at top of this discussion?
Aoziwe (
talk)
09:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- I did see that. It's just two opinion pieces on the possibility of a bridge. I actually used one of them when I added the section to The Rip. Which is why I think that might be an appropriate redirect target. Ewen Douglas ( talk) 15:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- I think there are some as per my suggested "Better search might be:" at top of this discussion?
Aoziwe (
talk)
09:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Perhaps the people providing comments, but actually having an opinion, could !vote. I'm loath to make a decision on comments alone.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 17:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Perhaps the people providing comments, but actually having an opinion, could !vote. I'm loath to make a decision on comments alone.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 17:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- Delete this appears to be purely speculative with a bunch of government sources which have looked into the planning of the bridge, but not much else. No problems with a merge to the Rip/adding a section there about failed crossing plans per ATD. SportingFlyer talk 17:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- Keep from a quick glance, the entirety of
David G Broadbent's contributions should be removed; I plan to do so shortly. The previous version
revision from March looks OK; I find enough references
[1]
[2] about a potential bridge to justify a keep.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
23:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- It probably would be good to rename this to Port Phillip Bay Bridge proposals if kept. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 23:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- However, neither of those sources are "Port Phillip Bay Bridge proposals". One is an opinion column that says "we should build a bridge here." The other is an article about something else that includes two sentences that state "since 1950 people have been saying there should be a bridge here." Even taken together, I don't see how that's enough to justify an article under our guidelines.
Ewen Douglas (
talk)
21:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- After reading the current state of the article (and cleaning it up a bit) I'm more convinced than ever that a redirect and merge is the right way to go. The bridge is non-existent. The sources for bridge "proposals" are literally just people writing opinion columns saying "people have been saying they should build this bridge." There's never been any serious planning to actually build a bridge, and what talk there has been is quite insignificant, as evidenced by the lack of reliable sources dealing with this topic. It still doesn't reach WP:GNG. Ewen Douglas ( talk) 21:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- However, neither of those sources are "Port Phillip Bay Bridge proposals". One is an opinion column that says "we should build a bridge here." The other is an article about something else that includes two sentences that state "since 1950 people have been saying there should be a bridge here." Even taken together, I don't see how that's enough to justify an article under our guidelines.
Ewen Douglas (
talk)
21:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
The result was no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 12:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Port Phillip Bay Bridge ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
- Better search might be: google
A non-existent bridge that is being proposed by the creator of this article. There is no reliable secondary source coverage of this proposal. By the author's own account here, he has been proposing this bridge since 1998. This article appears to be a promotional effort or advertising, or both, in conjunction with this personal proposal. In the article itself, he states the proposal is "not a serious proposition at the moment." Ewen Douglas ( talk) 21:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ewen Douglas ( talk) 01:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Comment. This is a legit topic as an actually historically significant proposal that still comes up from time to time, but it needs to actually document that - this guy's iteration of it is not itself notable and none of this content is actually helpful for an encyclopedia article. I am not opposed to responding with WP:TNT in the case of the current article but I would be strongly opposed to any finding that it's not a notable topic should someone recreate it and do it properly. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 22:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - Just to clear things up. The original author isn't the one proposing the bridge. The diff provided to my talk page and recent edits to the article are from a former CEO of the company who worked on the bridge proposal, and he's here some 20 years later offering his entire proposal text and images into the public domain. I'm undecided whether this topic warrants an article or not. It was a big discussion point across media at the time but again, nothing ever came of it and probably never will. -- Longhair\ talk 22:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- Weak delete Basically WP:TNT ie WP:DUEWEIGHT. Initial indications are notable in general re a bridge, but the current article is one of several infrastructure proposals, including a tunnel? Articles needs to discuss all such proposals with due weight. Aoziwe ( talk) 11:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - redirect suggestion: It turns out there's an article at The Rip already (yes, it's about the stretch of water that this non-existent bridge would cross). It does not, at present, include any info about potential crossing infrastructure, be that a bridge, tunnel, what-have-you. Suggest that this article redirect to a new section in The Rip that would cover such crossing propositions, similar to what Aoziwe ( talk) suggested, just not as a stand-alone article. Ewen Douglas ( talk) 20:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- I've started that section
here. If anyone has anything to add, that would be helpful. I think a redirect to there would be appropriate, along with a line or two summarizing what the author of this article has submitted.
Ewen Douglas (
talk)
17:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- I oppose this: as the current article makes clear, a bay bridge would not likely cross the actual The Rip because of engineering reasons. Redirecting there just adds a layer of confusion. Just delete the thing so that a coherent article might be written one day, rather than redirecting it to a place it won't cross. Aoziwe's suggestion would be much better covered by a
Port Phillip Bay crossing proposals or something of that ilk.
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
21:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- How's that? Any crossing, be it bridge or tunnel, would cross The Rip. Just because the current article says one route is "unlikely" doesn't mean a layer of confusion is added. Another proposed crossing would still cross The Rip. Ewen Douglas ( talk) 01:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- For the record, there's also nowhere near enough material to justify creating an article called
Port Phillip Bay crossing proposals or anything like it. I'm not 100% opposed to a redirect to
Port Phillip rather than
The Rip, but the
Port Phillip article doen't have any material discussing crossing proposals either. If you'd like to add some there, I'm certain a redirect to there would be a viable option.
Ewen Douglas (
talk)
01:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- As this article makes clear, you can't have a crossing at The Rip without causing major issues at Point Nepean, which is basically as heavily protected an area as you can get on environmental, cultural and heritage grounds. You've not cited any source that suggests that any serious proposal involves any kind of crossing there. I don't understand the determination to redirect an article to a place that any bridge definitely won't be. A
Port Phillip redirect would be vastly more logical (and you put the information in The Rip article, so it can easily be moved), but it's still a worse outcome than just deleting the thing so it stays as a redlink for future article creation.
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
01:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm confused. Three days ago you wrote "I would be strongly opposed to any finding that it's not a notable topic". Now you've said there's no "source that suggests that any serious proposal involves any kind of crossing there" and you're arguing for deletion. Anyway, there is one source discussing a crossing there, that I already added to The Rip article, and
here's another. I'm not saying the article shouldn't be deleted, I'm just saying a redirect seems appropriate. There's not going to be an article at this name - "Port Phillip Bay Bridge" - unless a bridge is built. If your arguments are correct, then
Port Phillip Bay crossing proposals would be a more appropriate title. What's the upside of a straight deletion?
Ewen Douglas (
talk)
15:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- There is obviously a recurring bridge proposal, which is obviously notable, the exact location of which depends upon the proposal, but a direct crossing at The Rip being unlikely - and which those sources don't contradict (they just say bridge). You're the one with the obsession with The Rip and I just don't get the enthusiasm -
Port Phillip would be a much more obvious redirect target if you absolutely must.
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
18:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- "obviously a recurring bridge proposal, which is obviously notable" - I don't agree that that's obvious at all. Where's the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Also, I have no obsession with The Rip - but any proposals for "Port Phillip Bay Bridge" (or tunnel) were proposals that would cross at The Rip. Show me one proposal that's crossing somewhere besides The Rip and you might have a case for a redirect to Port Phillip. But there aren't any, are there? Ewen Douglas ( talk) 21:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- There is obviously a recurring bridge proposal, which is obviously notable, the exact location of which depends upon the proposal, but a direct crossing at The Rip being unlikely - and which those sources don't contradict (they just say bridge). You're the one with the obsession with The Rip and I just don't get the enthusiasm -
Port Phillip would be a much more obvious redirect target if you absolutely must.
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
18:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm confused. Three days ago you wrote "I would be strongly opposed to any finding that it's not a notable topic". Now you've said there's no "source that suggests that any serious proposal involves any kind of crossing there" and you're arguing for deletion. Anyway, there is one source discussing a crossing there, that I already added to The Rip article, and
here's another. I'm not saying the article shouldn't be deleted, I'm just saying a redirect seems appropriate. There's not going to be an article at this name - "Port Phillip Bay Bridge" - unless a bridge is built. If your arguments are correct, then
Port Phillip Bay crossing proposals would be a more appropriate title. What's the upside of a straight deletion?
Ewen Douglas (
talk)
15:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- As this article makes clear, you can't have a crossing at The Rip without causing major issues at Point Nepean, which is basically as heavily protected an area as you can get on environmental, cultural and heritage grounds. You've not cited any source that suggests that any serious proposal involves any kind of crossing there. I don't understand the determination to redirect an article to a place that any bridge definitely won't be. A
Port Phillip redirect would be vastly more logical (and you put the information in The Rip article, so it can easily be moved), but it's still a worse outcome than just deleting the thing so it stays as a redlink for future article creation.
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
01:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- I oppose this: as the current article makes clear, a bay bridge would not likely cross the actual The Rip because of engineering reasons. Redirecting there just adds a layer of confusion. Just delete the thing so that a coherent article might be written one day, rather than redirecting it to a place it won't cross. Aoziwe's suggestion would be much better covered by a
Port Phillip Bay crossing proposals or something of that ilk.
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
21:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- I've started that section
here. If anyone has anything to add, that would be helpful. I think a redirect to there would be appropriate, along with a line or two summarizing what the author of this article has submitted.
Ewen Douglas (
talk)
17:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Anyone know which of the sources might actually pass WP:GNG as opposed to being primary government documents? SportingFlyer talk 08:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- I think there are some as per my suggested "Better search might be:" at top of this discussion?
Aoziwe (
talk)
09:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- I did see that. It's just two opinion pieces on the possibility of a bridge. I actually used one of them when I added the section to The Rip. Which is why I think that might be an appropriate redirect target. Ewen Douglas ( talk) 15:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- I think there are some as per my suggested "Better search might be:" at top of this discussion?
Aoziwe (
talk)
09:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Perhaps the people providing comments, but actually having an opinion, could !vote. I'm loath to make a decision on comments alone.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 17:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Perhaps the people providing comments, but actually having an opinion, could !vote. I'm loath to make a decision on comments alone.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 17:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- Delete this appears to be purely speculative with a bunch of government sources which have looked into the planning of the bridge, but not much else. No problems with a merge to the Rip/adding a section there about failed crossing plans per ATD. SportingFlyer talk 17:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- Keep from a quick glance, the entirety of
David G Broadbent's contributions should be removed; I plan to do so shortly. The previous version
revision from March looks OK; I find enough references
[1]
[2] about a potential bridge to justify a keep.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
23:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- It probably would be good to rename this to Port Phillip Bay Bridge proposals if kept. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 23:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- However, neither of those sources are "Port Phillip Bay Bridge proposals". One is an opinion column that says "we should build a bridge here." The other is an article about something else that includes two sentences that state "since 1950 people have been saying there should be a bridge here." Even taken together, I don't see how that's enough to justify an article under our guidelines.
Ewen Douglas (
talk)
21:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- After reading the current state of the article (and cleaning it up a bit) I'm more convinced than ever that a redirect and merge is the right way to go. The bridge is non-existent. The sources for bridge "proposals" are literally just people writing opinion columns saying "people have been saying they should build this bridge." There's never been any serious planning to actually build a bridge, and what talk there has been is quite insignificant, as evidenced by the lack of reliable sources dealing with this topic. It still doesn't reach WP:GNG. Ewen Douglas ( talk) 21:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- However, neither of those sources are "Port Phillip Bay Bridge proposals". One is an opinion column that says "we should build a bridge here." The other is an article about something else that includes two sentences that state "since 1950 people have been saying there should be a bridge here." Even taken together, I don't see how that's enough to justify an article under our guidelines.
Ewen Douglas (
talk)
21:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- 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.