Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pink Bridge Incident

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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Bridge Incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not notable beyond local areaMiaKarina 15:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Completely insignificant. -- Kicking222 15:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: "per nom"? You listed no valid reason. It is a notable incident within Huntington, West Virginia with appropriate citations and an extensive body of text - more than many other articles which are kept on Wikipedia that lack sources. It has also been featured on CBS, ABC, CNN and FOX news, making it quite notable outside of the KYOVA region. If that wasn't the case, it would still fit the bill as would articles concerning the city itself - or else we'd be left with very few articles as most city-related articles do not fall into a broad region but are specific. Would you propose deleting Parks of Huntington, West Virginia or Cityscape of Huntington, West Virginia since it isn't notable outside the local area? Nope. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now anyway. Well-referenced artilce on an event that is causing alot of controversy and getting national exposure. People will likely be googling this topic for some time, and this article seems to be a good source for now. If the event dies down in the future, I may be open to a merge into Huntington, West Virginia, Recreation in Huntington, West Virginia, or a future spin-off article on the city. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 16:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if inclusion into another would be good if Recreation in Huntington, West Virginia is expanded upon in the future. The page length could become lengthy and the incident isn't wholly related to recreation within the city either. This is considered a 'spin-off' article for the city at current, but it could be directed towards Government as much as Recreation at this point. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was going to reccomend merging it into Ritter Park at some point in the future, but I see you had that deleted, a move with which I mildly disagree. But overall, I am still advocating for a keep here. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 16:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That was my mistake. I should have moved it instead of deleting when I merged the articles together, but by the time I got to them, most had been deleted. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To add: It was picked up by the Associated Press. That alone makes it notable. See many news articles for verification. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Wikipedia is not paper. If this article is not deemed encyclopedic material for Wikipedia, then this is not too nor is any other local landmark that gets national attention. It does not conform to one's point of view and the article is backed by a couple of news sources either from television or newspaper. However, I do like someone to go and take a picture of the bridge. Spongefan, 17:38 November 20 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge into Huntington, West Virginia. Matter of local interest only. This overly-long article can be much more concisely stated in a brief paragraph in the Huntington article. Agent 86 19:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • So you are suggesting watering down the article, leaving out the requests for the red/yellow bridges, the Mayor abusing city ordinances and the law, and dumbing it down to a short paragraph onto a page that is already lengthy and will only grow? Let's go ahead and water down thousands of Wikipedia articles because they may be too lengthy or of local interest.
  • Should we be going and deleting Recreation in Huntington, West Virginia since it is local? Or what about all the notable people from Huntington that have entries? Veterans Memorial Fieldhouse and Keith Albee would also fit the bill, along with Buildings at the University of Kentucky, etc. You haven't defined a line and it is vague and insignificant at best. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Good, concise writing does not equate "dumbing down". "Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parceque je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte.": Pascal,1656. Agent 86 20:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • When you leave out pertant information regarding potential lawsuits, potential action against the mayor for violating the law, copycat issues, and a wealth of other information (since it is being maintained into 2007), you are leaving the reader with a potentially biased and unsubstantial view on an event.
      • As a suggestion in order to not come off as arrogant and selfish, I would use only terminology that others can understand. i.e. Leave the foreign language out. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Wikinews Probably does not pass the "100 year" test, but neither deos 90% of Wikipedia articles. At least the editors provided a list of references, so it passes the "in the news right now" test. Edison 19:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • There is no such "100 year" test, or "in the news right now" test. If that was the case, any breaking news such as airline crashes should not be on Wikipedia. We might as well erase Southern Airlines Flight 932 because it doesn't pass this supposed "100 year" test, as well as, as you stated, 90% of the Wikipedia articles... Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This page should stay because this article gives great encyclopedic info of a current event going on in the tri-state area. The Punk 20:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • And one that will be extending with other incidents (that would be lumped under this article since they are all derivatives) involving numerous other bridges and now... underpasses. And the threat of legal action is one that now looms over the city... Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Request closure per WP:DP as it other alternatives exist. For instance, mergeto could have been suggested, along a request for comments could have been instigated; WP:PROD could have been useful as well. It doesn't fall into WP:NOT or any of the guidelines stated on WP:DP, either. Requesting closure with no consensus, defaulting to keep. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable and of interest only to people in the area. TJ Spyke 00:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you suggest deleting Recreation in Huntington, West Virginia, Veterans Memorial Fieldhouse, Keith Albee, Buildings at the University of Kentucky, Main Building, Gatton College of Business and Economics Building, Law Building, Charles T. Wethington, Jr. Building, Biomedical Biological Science Research Building, etc.? These are all localised subjects pertant to the region they are focused in, as are most of the articles that fall under the city jurisdiction on Wikipedia. Using your methodology, we'd be erasing most of the "non-notable" building entries within the United States, along with articles regarding flight crashes (as mentioned earlier), and other notable materials. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep See Wikipedia is not paper (as mentioned above). Also, any article with that many references within the first week of creation deserves an award, not a deletion. John Reaves 04:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article is well referenced, and is notable event about a notable city. WVhybrid 05:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - I live in Arizona, and I have heard of this incident. This definitely notable to people beyond the area. The article is well referenced, so I see no valid reason to delete it. -- THL^CCD 12:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A local example / part of an international movement. Peter Ellis 01:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per reasons stated above. Dblevins2 22:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Just because you've heard of something doesn't make it notable: I've heard of numerous minor pop stars having affairs with Z-list actors, but they aren't notable in the sense that you hope your children will have heard of them. The 9/11 aircraft flights and crashes are notable because they are part of something that shapes the world, but random disasters are not. In the same way, this is just some current news, and as such belongs in Wikinews, not in Wikipedia. If someday there is a worldwide "painting things pink" movement, then we will resurrect this article, as it will be notable as the first significant pink bridge. But we're not here to predict the future, so right now it's just a pink bridge: mildly interesting, but not notable. WMMartin 16:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Per comment left above, it is an exhaustible resource to Huntington. If we removed all localised information for the city based that it is "not notable outside of the locals," we would be removing much of the interesting information that makes a city unique. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - this is not notable in the slightest, and affects nobody but a few locals. Pete Fenelon 00:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Per comment left above, it is an exhaustible resource to Huntington. If we removed all localised information for the city based that it is "not notable outside of the locals," we would be removing much of the interesting information that makes a city unique. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable incident, and the article has more detail than the Huntington article could reasonably accommodate. JamesMLane t c 01:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It is also articles like this that makes a city article not only more complete and fulfilling, but interesting. How many cities can claim that they have a pink bridge that has caused controversy for over a month? What if we were to delete every interesting or notable (localised) incident that were to occur? Wikipedia's city pages would be very dull and boring indeed. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, of interest only to people in the area is enough. bbx 08:52, 27 November 2006 (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.