Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shippingsport Bridge

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn by nominator. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shippingsport Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

As far as I can tell, it's a bridge of no particular note. JoelWhy (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - Why was this article nominated for AfD in less than an hour of its creation? [1] --Oakshade (talk) 23:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know, right? I don't even know why it's up for deletion! Sure, it's short, but it has more than 3,500 bytes, so that's a start! HappyWheeler4Life (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)John Weeks[reply]

Clearly somebody assumed negative notability... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The original bridge is part of the Historic American Engineering Record as part of the Illinois and Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor, and it figures prominently in the history of Oglesby. I also found two (paywalled) news articles about its closing (one Associated Press article and one in The Pantagraph), as well as a Peoria Journal Star article about the opening of the new bridge, and it's apparently mentioned in this book on bridge engineering. This definitely looks like a bridge of note. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 05:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Based on the added citations today, I withdraw my request for deletion consideration.JoelWhy (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The nomination has been withdrawn (See directly above this comment). Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:41, 27 March 2012 (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.