Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridge architect

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 Delete. Ironholds (talk) 12:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge architect

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

Page is primarily a list of firms, with many firms who might meet the description missing. It seems a matter of pure subjective judgement as to who would be included, and if it is useful, better dealt with via the existing Bridge architects category. The definition at the top is essentially spurious - I doubt there are many practicing bridge designers who would agree with it, it is not in common use and indeed I have never seen it anywhere other than on this page. Kvetner (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd say to keep it until someone has made an article for the history of bridge design that can stand by itself. At that point you could basically split this page into 2: Bridge design and Category:Bridge architects. In that case, there should also be an article on each and everyone of the people listed here ... it might take some time! 12:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- If they're not sufficiently notable to merit an article of their own, then why are they notable enough to mention within this article? -- Kvetner (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see the harm in keeping it. It is informative and since I know nothing about the subject it became actually interesting. I don't see the problem with the title, googleing it does not show much (yet still knows something), but should Google be the one and only meter to decide whether something exists in this world? :D On another note, Mandsford, how can you compare someone who installs an elevator to someone who actually design some of the most amazing and admired structures in the world, someone that with his design shapes the world and the way we move on it? 22:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.180.24.6 (talk)
- The harm is that poorly referenced, non-notable entries detract from Wikipedia's reputation and value. What was informative about it? It's clear that bridge architects exist, but that doesn't merit their inclusion in an encyclopaedia. -- Kvetner (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maintain it is a notable topic. There is no reason for deletion. It is very useful in fact. It would be nice if there was some more history abour bridge design, but I can't see any problem in knowing who's who in the bridge design today. 20:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.157.177.228 (talk)
- Wikipedia is not a directory of firms or individuals, it's an encyclopaedia. "Usefulness" is not relevant, notability is. What is your argument for its notability, other than that it's handy to have a list of firms, a function already served by the bridge architect category? There also seems to be some confusion here - if you want to know who's who in bridge design, surely you want an article on bridge designers, not on bridge architects. -- Kvetner (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify a quick Google search shows this to be a notable topic. The current page is sub-par but that is no reason for deletion. Remove the extensive list of firms and start over. -Atmoz (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should be an article on the designers of bridges, across all times and cultures. Instead it is about some professional jargon that nobody outside the field cares about. Obviously all bridges are designed so redirect to Bridge or History of bridges. Borock (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What to make of this one? It's actually a "List of bridge architects" (or list of architectural firms) without the "kick me" sign on its back, and an unsourced and not very useful list at that. I can't say that it's an advertisement either ("We selected you for our multi-million dollar project because you were mentioned on Wikipedia"). Certainly, persons who do the designing, engineering and construction of bridges are important, though I could say the same thing about the persons who install elevators. An article that crosses all times and cultures is a tall order, but there certainly is room in our fun encyclopedia for a good article about a topic in the less exciting topic of infrastructure. At the moment, this isn't it. Mandsford 16:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite a very few google hits, the term "bridge architect" is not in wide use by any means, and the obscurely referenced bizarre definition cannot be taken as a basis for an article. The content of the list is random, unreferenced and useless. Bridge engineering [1] would be a far more useful and notable article. --Elekhh (talk) 02:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The majority of google hits on the combined term "bridge architect" are either to "bridge, architect" or simply to refer to someone who is the architect of a bridge. Neither shows the term to have any currency beyond the article here on Wikipedia. Google hits for "bridge designer" would not demonstrate that to be a term worth an article. "Landscape architect" is a useful term with widespread currency - "bridge architect" is not notable in itself any more than would be "railroad station architect" or "skyscraper architect". Regarding Borock's comment, I am a bridge design professional with many friends who are architects who design bridges, but they just use the term "architect", not "bridge architect", even when they are specialists. I think an article on bridge design or architecture of bridges could find room to cover this topic, but it just doesn't stand alone on its own merits. If the list of firms were removed, there is nothing left to say - the Arup definition cited does not, so far as I can tell, appear in any secondary source and is certainly not used in the field of bridge design. I should note that I see no problem with Category:Bridge architects as it can simply serve the function of listing architects for whom the design of bridges is a significant part of their practice, something that may be genuinely useful where the architects are notable enough to have an article anyway. Kvetner (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Bridge and pare down to eliminate the list of individual designers. They can have their own articles if they pass notability guidelines. This is a case where blindly counting Google hits is silly. For one, the customary term is "Bridge designer," not "Bridge architect." Second, it doesn't give a good indication of the notability of the topic. --Crunch (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2011 (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.