Talk:Pghbridges.com
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 25 January 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here. |
fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I put this article up because I have been leaning heavily on this site for Coraopolis Bridge, and for my not yet done Three Sisters (Pittsburgh) project and it's a very good reference site. ++Lar: t/c 18:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- It's a nice reference site, but is it encyclopediac? I'm throwing up an AfD on this, because if it IS such a reference site, the inbound links at least would go higher than 140. What's Altavista's inbound link counter say? RasputinAXP talk contribs 18:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Since the article did survive, I plan to refactor some of the content in the article, retaining, but deemphasising the notability material, and improving discussion on coverage area, type of material found, and so forth. I subsequently discovered that structurae.de actually already has an article: structurae. I'm going to seriously consider creating a new subcategory of Category:websites for reference websites (perhaps calling it just that) and move this site, archINFORM, Encyclopedia Mythica and structurae, among others, there... (educational isn;t QUITE the right fit) and welcome comments or suggestions. ++Lar: t/c 13:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- Category:Reference websites sounds good to me. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- Since the article did survive, I plan to refactor some of the content in the article, retaining, but deemphasising the notability material, and improving discussion on coverage area, type of material found, and so forth. I subsequently discovered that structurae.de actually already has an article: structurae. I'm going to seriously consider creating a new subcategory of Category:websites for reference websites (perhaps calling it just that) and move this site, archINFORM, Encyclopedia Mythica and structurae, among others, there... (educational isn;t QUITE the right fit) and welcome comments or suggestions. ++Lar: t/c 13:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Move back to pghbridges.com
My read of the AfD was that consensus, in the end, was for a straight keep. I've asked Mark for his read of consensus, but I also asked (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RM#January_31.2C_2006) that this article be moved back. It doesn't fit the article title it its present form. Nor do I think that merging structurae in, as was suggested early on in the AfD, now that I know that article exists, is a good idea. ++Lar: t/c 21:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Lar. This shouldn't have been moved here. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 21:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- AFD doesn't decide moves; indeed, a move is a form of keep. Five separate people have suggested in that discussion that a move would be appropriate, hence it seemed like a good idea. Radiant_>|< 21:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- No one's accusing you of a bad faith move or that you didn't think it was a good idea. But sometimes AfD does in fact clearly show consensus for moves, and sometimes it does not. Just as many people or more may have preferred that it stay in articlespace (it is true we can't be as sure of the exact number as we are of those favouring delete or favouring move, but there were several that in their statements explicitly argued against a move) and now it's stuck here unless an admin moves it back. So it's all water under the dam now. Let's instead talk through the pros and cons, then. One pro of moving it back is that it becomes parallel to structurae, archINFORM, HAER, Comixpedia.com (were such to be created), AskOxford.com, BookRags, Reference.com, Encyclopedia Mythica, et al, it's a reference database more than a random website, and belongs in the category I proposed above, just as they would. One con, of course, is that it's not as notable as some of the others I just listed... ++Lar: t/c 22:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
