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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Edmonton Footbridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

A simple footbridge is not notable, WP:NTRAN states it should be analyzed and discussed in multiple independent sources, these sources only mention its opening. It does not meet the NTRAN criteria for being a named bridge, because it is simply named after the nearest landmark for foot trail purposes. 117Avenue (talk) 04:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Multiple reliable sources are provided; for example, the cited Edmonton Journal article calls it "The most beautiful structure you've not yet seen in Edmonton" and discusses the history and design of the bridge in detail. Passes WP:GNG, importance (not just notability) is demonstrated, no reason to delete this. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This easily passes the general notability guidelines, based on substantial coverage in reliable sources, which goes beyond simply stating such-and-such bridge opened in such-and-such place. A foot bridge (or any bridge) is not automatically notable, or even normally notable. Coverage goes beyond simply mentioning there's a new bridge in a certain place. But, it goes into significant detail about the bridge. --Rob (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NTRAN and WP:GNG. Very in-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources.--Oakshade (talk) 01:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2012 (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.