Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridge rail

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 redirect to

bridge barrier. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Bridge rail

Bridge rail (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)

Redirect to Rail profile#Bridge rail; obvious primary topic. The other entry only mentions the term once in the entire page, and is not listed in its #Types of guardrail section. WT79 (speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing) 14:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
    Talk to my owner:Online 14:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The Bridge rail page was originally created as a redirect to Baulk road as this type of rail section was designed specifically for that type of track. The Guard rails article does not make it clear why this was converted to a disambiguation page.Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the converter to the dab page 10 years ago, I can say in retrospect that it might have been better to have changed the redirect to the railway/railroad target and added a hatnote there to the respective bridge component article. However, "bridge rail" is a common term in bridge construction (see documents from the U.S. states of Texas and Minnesota and a fan page which includes official references regarding Michigan) and therefore should have a wikilink somewhere, either from a dab page or a hatnote. In searching since I discovered this AfD I found Traffic barrier § Types and performance which does mention the type of structure, if only calling it a "bridge barrier" and not providing sources, but at least there would be some relevant material at the target, with the addition of sources to come. Mapsax (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references that I provided above, and I could probably find more, show that the term in the bridge context is as legitimate as the one in the railway context. I am not against a redirect and a hatnote added to the target article, just the claim of illegitimacy. Mapsax (talk) 22:12, 18 July 2020 (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.