Talk:Knight's Bridge

Moving on from the AfD

Alright, so since we decided deletion was not the way to go on this article, I thought we'd start off a discussion on the multiple ideas proposed.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me that as the road was named after the original bridge, that's more likely the better topic for the article. Any Oregon folks around here have access to the sources mentioned in the AfD? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I was tired of the AfD and the relentless badgering by the Inclusionists who didn't actually do any work to improve the article, so I haven't looked at the debate after I withdrew the nom. That said, I have sources, from actual books--3 or 4 or so, which I will get around to adding to the article eventually. Sorry if I sound bitter, I've got other stuff going on in my life right now, and defending what seemed to be a rountine deletion nomination on an article about a minor formerly notable bridge was not high on my priority list. Valfontis (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing else was discussed after you withdrew it, the discussion was simply closed. Your proposals to merge or move the content are still totally valid, and can be discussed.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) P.S. In the meantime, until I get a chance to flesh it out, adding the information that can be gleaned from the snippet view of the books I've consulted would be a good start, since the article still doesn't say anything about why the bridge is notable. It would sure be nice if some of the "keep" voters could do that work. (post ec comment) I think there is enough to keep the article here, once it is expanded. Valfontis (talk) 23:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)