Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immigration 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 06:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Immigration Bridge

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

HI, sorry for blanking the Immigration Bridge page - I thought that is how you deleted.

I would like to delete this item as I do not believe it fits into the category of Buildings and structures in Canberra. The Immigration Bridge is neither a building nor a structure - it is a concept, it is not built nor has been built. All the other articles in this category have either been built and are still standing or where once built and are no longer with us, this is why I feel that it should be deleted

If it is decided that it should stay them I will accept that. Thanks for your help and sorry for any trouble I have caused.CanberraBulldog (talk) 05:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it has reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The coverage already presented in the article is significant. A topic being in the "wrong category" is not proper grounds to delete an article. --Oakshade (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One could argue WP:CRYSTAL as this bridge will hopefully never be built. However there has been significant coverage of the proposal, which makes it verifiable speculation such that WP:CRYSTAL does not apply. A clearly notable topic. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While this bridge may not be built, the proposal to build it is notable - it's received extensive media coverage and was the subject of an Australian parliamentary inquiry. Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 5 March 2010 (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.