Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridge rail

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 Rail profile#Bridge rail. A redirect section-hatnote can be placed there to bridge barrier. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge rail

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(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 transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:35, 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]

Now we have a section in Rail profile, wouldn't that be a better (future) target? WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 17:20, 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]

Thank you Mapsax for that link, I have rewritten the guard rail entry to link to Bridge barrier. It looks a bit more plausible as a dab page now; before, the entry for the guardrail appeared to be purely a random two-word combination, as BD2412 says in his comment below. WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 09:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary WP:D Lightburst (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Referring to the guardrail on a bridge as "bridge rail" is not an encyclopedic construction, so there really is only one meaning for this term. BD2412 T 01:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since this AfD was opened, I have done substantial cleanup/rewriting (with a bit of WP:TNT) to the page in question, meaning that my nominating rationale is slightly outdated. The revision of the page when the AfD was opened was this one (this edit had only just been made); the difference is shown here. WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 09:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rail profile#Bridge rail, the only legitimate use, and delete G14 Bridge rail (disambiguation). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:59, 18 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.