782:- We do not have substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Yes, this bridge shows up in a list article. So what? If the only thing noteworthy about it is its length, redirect this to the list. The database listing (currently linked in the article) proves that it exists and a few reliable sources mention -- in passing -- that the bridge is the longest of its type in Tibet or China (depending on the source; feel free to have heated arguments about this on the talk page). What we seem to have is a permanent stub. -
354:. A search at Google News did not provide anything relevant but I assumed this would happen so I searched Google Books first. Looking at the article's photo, the bridge looks like it was rather minor and simple work and probably wasn't a major and expensive project. The article most likely needs someone familiar with Chinese bridges and fluent with Chinese. If the article can't be kept, merging and redirecting to
385:, and by creating this stub, it eventually found a picture, and coordinates, and hopefully someday there'll be more information. Just because there isn't, is no reason to delete it. While I haven't been very active in Knowledge for a while, the fact that this is even being discussed is beyond my comprehension. What has Knowledge become? --
1065:- if it's the biggest bridge in Tibet, then sources will blatantly exist. As I said before, we need an editor with access to Chinese and Tibetan sources on this. Also, I've presented several English sources myself in this, so I have absolutely no idea why people haven't attempted to evaluate those... Using Google Translate, I've found these:
590:
537:
You must not have looked closely because the second external link mentions the 1984 establishment and my vote above provided some other references. As I also mentioned in my vote, if the article can't be kept, redirecting would be a good option (it is relevant to the city) rather than deleting it.
818:
Artificial features related to infrastructure (for example, bridges and dams) can be notable under
Knowledge's GNG. Where their notability is unclear, they generally redirect to more general articles or to a named natural feature that prompted their creation, e.g., to an article about the notable
434:
articles because they are non-notable, and by keeping them we would encourage similar non-notable cruft. This bridge is one of the 100 longest suspension spans in the world, and the longest in Tibet. It is found on published lists of the longest bridge spans. What do you find non-notable about
598:. There are almost certainly countless Chinese, Nepalese or Tibetan sources on this as well - someone with more access to these books and those foreign sources will be able to expand this article quite dramatically. I question whether either the nominator, or the delete voters, have either read
1295:
The only notable thing I found was in Lukeno94's sixth reference at chinatibetnews.com - that it was the longest suspension bridge in China at the time (1984). Other mentions were either unreliable or trivial. Tried searching via simplified
Chinese and pinyin ("ćŸ·ćșæĄ„", "ćŸ·ćșćæĄ„" and "dazi bridge").
329:
unless additional sources are found. Simply listing "not enough information" is not appropriate to explain the article's issues, there are several stubs but yet are notable. It is understandable that sources are going to be
Chinese but I did find some English books through Google Books
1155:, using what seems to be a pre-Pinyin transcription of the place name, each seem to give a few at least slightly usable references. However, as the total information we get for the moment is unlikely to amount to more than a few sentences, I see no harm in merging to
458:. Articles do not have a different bar for deletion once they are created than the bar for creation when they don't exist yet. We delete articles that are not notable for exactly the same reasons we don't create articles that are not notable.
1143:'s Chinese links certainly looks reliable and substantial enough (though a couple of the others look to come from blogs or personal websites), and could decently extend the article by another sentence or so. Also, the BBC seem to have had a
331:
1096:. The second of the above sources claims it as the oldest cable stayed bridge in (contentiously) China & an important bit of infrastructure, certainly the article needs expansion &c but being a stub is no reason to delete.
821:" The problem is what to redirect to. I don't see in the sparse sources any indication of the road it carries or the obstacle it spans. (This problem, of course, is entirely consistent with the lack of notability here.) -
335:
1246:
We're probably close to (or at) a snow keep, but not a speedy 2: "... and (since bad motivations of the nominator don't have direct bearing on the validity of the nomination) nobody unrelated recommends deleting it." -
169:
483:. Maybe borderline notability, but the fact it's one of the hundred longest suspension bridge spans tips it for me. If deleted, it would be one of only two of these bridges not to have its own article. --
346:) which also does not provide much information but it seems to start saying "It is the longest span..." which could be relevant or irrelevant to this bridge. This last book also says it is larger than the
1114:
Its instructive to take a look at the nominators talk page, a long list of deletion notices for articles created, some on eye-wateringly trivial subjects. Imo this afd nomination is pure mischief making.
408:
We don't keep articles because it doesn't hurt to keep them - we keep them because they're notable. If you want to argue that this article should remain, do so on the merits, according to
589:
is usable for the specifications/statistics of the bridge, and also directly makes a mention of a book with some information on this bridge - there are passing mentions in that book.
241:
1147:
on the opening of the bridge back in 1984. Abd participants here have not been sufficiently inventive to try for alternative versions of the bridge's name. GBooks searches on
217:
122:
555:
749:
of SK1: "...and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted." By the time you requested a speedy keep, two other editors had !voted delete. -
163:
593:
1078:. I wish people would actually bother to look for things - not all of these are detailed, but then, I don't speak Chinese, so Google Translate is all I've used.
265:
382:
296:
for bridges and other infrastructure is not clear, so I will defer to the judgment of others in deciding between redirecting or a full keep.
129:
1013:
999:
518:
505:
292:: Nominator's rationale is invalid, as there is already enough identifying information (even coordinates) present in the article. The
1021:
526:
631:). Page 304 in the forth reference by R. Scott does mention that the bridge "became China's longest single span in late 1984."
596:
339:
95:
90:
17:
338:(also briefly mentions the bridge and the next two pages are omitted which talk about the bridge, according to the index) and
435:
that? I still don't understand why this is being discussed. Has
Knowledge been taken over by deletion-happy bureaucrats? --
99:
602:
or truly looked for sources - all I did was search Dazi Bridge on Google and found these, without any specialist knowledge.
922:
This should be marked as a comment rather than a bolded "delete". That you want it deleted is implied by your nomination.
184:
670:- The nominatior's "rationaile" isn't a policy-based deletion argument and, in fact, isn't a call for deletion at all. -
151:
82:
1036:. Your claim that it is is meaningless without explanation. Please explain which guideline(s) you believe it meets. -
947:
Neither of these are even REMOTELY reasons for deletion... Have you ever read any guidelines on
Knowledge at all?
1325:
1219:
40:
904:
The bridge does not have the year completed and it also does not have the main span meters or main span feet. --
1017:
1003:
732:
675:
544:
522:
509:
368:
847:
It will certainly pass GNG with
Tibetan, Chinese or whatever sources. We need an editor with access to these.
145:
932:
658:
269:
245:
221:
992:
The rationale by the user nominating deletion does not call for deletion. This is a very notable bridge.
909:
347:
205:
1321:
1237:
1119:
1101:
1083:
952:
852:
694:
607:
141:
36:
1306:
1287:
1264:
1241:
1223:
1198:
1172:
1123:
1105:
1087:
1053:
1007:
982:
956:
938:
913:
886:
856:
838:
799:
766:
738:
714:
681:
662:
641:
611:
575:
549:
513:
492:
467:
449:
425:
399:
373:
321:
300:
281:
257:
233:
209:
64:
1215:
1168:
1068:
995:
488:
1148:
1297:
1260:
1233:
1194:
1152:
1140:
1079:
1049:
978:
948:
882:
848:
834:
795:
762:
728:
710:
671:
632:
603:
571:
539:
363:
191:
177:
869:
materialize in the future, the ONE sentence in this article should be easy enough to rebuild... -
924:
654:
463:
421:
317:
1156:
587:
355:
1181:
PWilkinson: Just curious: Can you read
Chinese? If not, how does the source "look" reliable? -
1032:
Whether or not you agree with the nominator's reasoning, others are arguing the bridge is not
905:
813:
413:
293:
201:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1320:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1074:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1115:
1097:
599:
86:
965:
I have stricken the repeat !vote, without comment on the argument/counter-argument here. -
1164:
484:
157:
1304:
1248:
1182:
1037:
966:
870:
822:
783:
750:
698:
639:
559:
55:
1280:
724:
653:-- surely a 500m suspension bridge is long enough to be of interest, hence notable.
459:
444:
417:
409:
394:
313:
309:
116:
1144:
1033:
78:
70:
455:
436:
386:
1072:
1160:
351:
1066:
440:
390:
362:, could mention this bridge but I wouldn't be surprised if it does not.
358:
would be a good option. I am curious if the book cited at DagzĂȘ, DagzĂȘ,
1076:
627:) and the third source states that it is based on Knowledge articles (
723:"it needs more information" is not a deletion rationaile, therefore
1314:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1232:
It could be a Speedy Keep per the second rule of Speedy Keeps.
1210:
As per
Bushranger. Note that in practice delete !votes do not
381:
Who does it hurt to leave this? This bridge is listed in
1070:
334:(lists some information about the bridge but not much),
112:
108:
104:
176:
242:
861:I see no basis for your assumption that "sources
819:road it carries or the notable obstacle it spans.
218:list of Architecture-related deletion discussions
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1328:). No further edits should be made to this page.
556:Knowledge:Sockpuppet_investigations/Starship9000
190:
8:
693:- I believe you mean "Keep", as there is no
264:Note: This debate has been included in the
240:Note: This debate has been included in the
216:Note: This debate has been included in the
623:The second source makes a passing mention (
416:, not that there's no harm in keeping it.
266:list of China-related deletion discussions
263:
239:
215:
344:Structural engineering & construction
308:I can't find any evidence that it meets
383:List of longest suspension bridge spans
592:There will also be information here:
7:
595:, and there is mention of it here:
865:exist. If, however, those sources
24:
1159:, where it is situated, or the
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
430:You've got it backwards. We
342:(fourth result from the top,
1307:22:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
1288:15:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
1265:18:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
1242:14:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
1224:03:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
1199:00:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
1173:23:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
1124:20:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
1106:20:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
1088:11:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
1054:00:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
1008:18:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
983:00:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
957:08:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
939:03:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
914:00:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
887:01:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
857:09:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
839:04:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
800:04:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
767:00:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
739:22:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
727:should have been applied. -
715:04:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
682:23:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
663:18:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
642:22:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
612:14:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
576:03:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
550:19:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
514:13:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
493:10:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
468:11:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
450:00:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
426:14:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
400:08:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
374:06:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
360:Tibet: a travel survival kit
322:04:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
301:01:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
282:01:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
258:01:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
234:01:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
210:00:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
65:23:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
1345:
200:it needs more information
312:. Few secondary sources.
1317:Please do not modify it.
1278:--- Enough to be kept.--
32:Please do not modify it.
1214:prevent speedy keeps.
504:it has no references --
1022:few or no other edits
527:few or no other edits
1163:, which it crosses.
1024:outside this topic.
529:outside this topic.
379:Most Definitely Keep
348:Chaoyang Arch Bridge
294:notability guideline
554:Duplicate vote per
456:hysteretic property
454:Notability isn't a
48:The result was
1286:
1025:
998:comment added by
530:
284:
260:
236:
63:
1336:
1319:
1302:
1285:
1257:
1254:
1251:
1191:
1188:
1185:
1139:. The second of
1046:
1043:
1040:
1011:
1010:
975:
972:
969:
937:
935:
931:
927:
879:
876:
873:
831:
828:
825:
792:
789:
786:
759:
756:
753:
735:
707:
704:
701:
678:
637:
568:
565:
562:
547:
542:
516:
447:
397:
371:
366:
278:
275:
272:
254:
251:
248:
230:
227:
224:
195:
194:
180:
132:
120:
102:
62:
60:
53:
34:
1344:
1343:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1326:deletion review
1315:
1298:
1255:
1252:
1249:
1216:Unscintillating
1189:
1186:
1183:
1044:
1041:
1038:
993:
973:
970:
967:
933:
929:
925:
923:
877:
874:
871:
829:
826:
823:
790:
787:
784:
757:
754:
751:
737:
733:
705:
702:
699:
697:reason here. -
680:
676:
633:
566:
563:
560:
545:
540:
445:
395:
369:
364:
276:
273:
270:
252:
249:
246:
228:
225:
222:
137:
128:
93:
77:
74:
56:
54:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1342:
1340:
1331:
1330:
1310:
1309:
1290:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1227:
1226:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1176:
1175:
1149:Taktse Zamchen
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1109:
1108:
1090:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1027:
1026:
1014:150.212.29.226
1000:150.212.29.226
986:
985:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
942:
941:
917:
916:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
891:
890:
889:
842:
841:
803:
802:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
742:
741:
731:
729:The Bushranger
718:
717:
685:
684:
674:
672:The Bushranger
665:
647:
646:
645:
644:
615:
614:
581:
580:
579:
578:
552:
541:SwisterTwister
532:
531:
519:74.131.177.233
506:74.131.177.233
496:
495:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
403:
402:
376:
365:SwisterTwister
324:
303:
286:
285:
261:
237:
198:
197:
134:
73:
68:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1341:
1329:
1327:
1323:
1318:
1312:
1311:
1308:
1305:
1303:
1301:
1294:
1291:
1289:
1283:
1282:
1277:
1274:
1273:
1266:
1262:
1258:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1206:
1205:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1153:Taktse bridge
1150:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1131:
1130:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1075:
1073:
1071:
1069:
1067:
1064:
1061:
1060:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1035:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1009:
1005:
1001:
997:
991:
988:
987:
984:
980:
976:
964:
958:
954:
950:
946:
945:
944:
943:
940:
936:
928:
921:
920:
919:
918:
915:
911:
907:
903:
902:
898:
897:
888:
884:
880:
868:
864:
860:
859:
858:
854:
850:
846:
845:
844:
843:
840:
836:
832:
820:
815:
811:
807:
806:
805:
804:
801:
797:
793:
781:
780:
776:
775:
768:
764:
760:
748:
744:
743:
740:
736:
734:One ping only
730:
726:
722:
721:
720:
719:
716:
712:
708:
696:
692:
689:
688:
687:
686:
683:
679:
677:One ping only
673:
669:
666:
664:
660:
656:
655:Peterkingiron
652:
649:
648:
643:
640:
638:
636:
630:
626:
622:
619:
618:
617:
616:
613:
609:
605:
601:
597:
594:
591:
588:
586:
583:
582:
577:
573:
569:
557:
553:
551:
548:
543:
536:
535:
534:
533:
528:
524:
520:
515:
511:
507:
503:
502:
498:
497:
494:
490:
486:
482:
479:
478:
469:
465:
461:
457:
453:
452:
451:
448:
443:
442:
438:
433:
429:
428:
427:
423:
419:
415:
411:
407:
406:
405:
404:
401:
398:
393:
392:
388:
384:
380:
377:
375:
372:
367:
361:
357:
353:
349:
345:
341:
337:
333:
328:
325:
323:
319:
315:
311:
307:
304:
302:
299:
295:
291:
288:
287:
283:
279:
267:
262:
259:
255:
243:
238:
235:
231:
219:
214:
213:
212:
211:
207:
203:
193:
189:
186:
183:
179:
175:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
143:
140:
139:Find sources:
135:
131:
127:
124:
118:
114:
110:
106:
101:
97:
92:
88:
84:
80:
76:
75:
72:
69:
67:
66:
61:
59:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1316:
1313:
1299:
1292:
1279:
1275:
1211:
1207:
1157:DagzĂȘ, DagzĂȘ
1136:
1132:
1093:
1062:
994:â Preceding
989:
906:Starship9000
900:
899:
866:
862:
817:
809:
808:Changing to
778:
777:
746:
745:Please read
690:
667:
650:
634:
628:
624:
620:
584:
500:
499:
480:
439:
431:
389:
378:
359:
356:DagzĂȘ, DagzĂȘ
343:
326:
305:
297:
289:
277:PEANUTBUTTER
253:PEANUTBUTTER
229:PEANUTBUTTER
202:Starship9000
199:
187:
181:
173:
166:
160:
154:
148:
138:
125:
57:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1208:Speedy keep
1116:TheLongTone
1098:TheLongTone
1020:) has made
695:speedy keep
668:Speedy keep
525:) has made
164:free images
79:Dazi Bridge
71:Dazi Bridge
1165:PWilkinson
1145:short item
814:WP:GEOFEAT
629:unreliable
485:Necrothesp
446:uelWantman
414:WP:GEOFEAT
396:uelWantman
58:Sandstein
1322:talk page
1293:Weak Keep
1161:Kyi River
779:Undecided
600:WP:BEFORE
352:Chongqing
327:Uncertain
37:talk page
1324:or in a
1281:Milowent
1234:Lukeno94
1141:Lukeno94
1080:Lukeno94
996:unsigned
949:Lukeno94
849:Lukeno94
810:Redirect
604:Lukeno94
460:PianoDan
418:PianoDan
314:PianoDan
123:View log
39:or in a
1063:Comment
1034:notable
934:Shalott
691:Comment
625:trivial
621:Comment
585:Comment
290:Comment
170:WPÂ refs
158:scholar
96:protect
91:history
1212:per se
1092:Clear
901:Delete
812:. Per
725:WP:SK1
501:Delete
432:delete
410:WP:GNG
310:WP:GNG
306:Delete
142:Google
100:delete
1300:Funny
1137:merge
635:Funny
268:. â
â
244:. â
â
220:. â
â
185:JSTOR
146:books
130:Stats
117:views
109:watch
105:links
16:<
1276:Keep
1261:talk
1238:talk
1220:talk
1195:talk
1169:talk
1151:and
1133:Keep
1120:talk
1102:talk
1094:Keep
1084:talk
1050:talk
1018:talk
1004:talk
990:Keep
979:talk
953:talk
926:Lady
910:talk
883:talk
863:must
853:talk
835:talk
796:talk
763:talk
711:talk
659:talk
651:Keep
608:talk
572:talk
558:. -
546:talk
523:talk
510:talk
489:talk
481:Keep
464:talk
422:talk
412:and
370:talk
340:here
336:here
332:here
318:talk
298:GotR
271:DUCK
247:DUCK
223:DUCK
206:talk
178:FENS
152:news
113:logs
87:talk
83:edit
50:keep
1256:PhD
1253:mer
1250:Sum
1190:PhD
1187:mer
1184:Sum
1135:or
1045:PhD
1042:mer
1039:Sum
974:PhD
971:mer
968:Sum
878:PhD
875:mer
872:Sum
830:PhD
827:mer
824:Sum
816:, "
791:PhD
788:mer
785:Sum
758:PhD
755:mer
752:Sum
747:all
706:PhD
703:mer
700:Sum
567:PhD
564:mer
561:Sum
441:Sam
391:Sam
350:in
280:ââ
256:ââ
232:ââ
192:TWL
121:â (
1284:âą
1263:)
1240:)
1222:)
1197:)
1171:)
1122:)
1104:)
1086:)
1052:)
1012:â
1006:)
981:)
955:)
930:of
912:)
885:)
867:do
855:)
837:)
798:)
765:)
713:)
661:)
610:)
574:)
517:â
512:)
491:)
466:)
437:â
424:)
387:â
320:)
274:IS
250:IS
226:IS
208:)
172:)
115:|
111:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
52:.
1259:(
1236:(
1218:(
1193:(
1167:(
1118:(
1100:(
1082:(
1048:(
1016:(
1002:(
977:(
951:(
908:(
881:(
851:(
833:(
794:(
761:(
709:(
657:(
606:(
570:(
521:(
508:(
487:(
462:(
420:(
316:(
204:(
196:)
188:·
182:·
174:·
167:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
144:(
136:(
133:)
126:·
119:)
81:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.