I think you need to look at our standards for "temporary" notability (it isn't) a bit more closely.
 You made the newbie error of blanking references because their host website had since 404'ed, which you then compounded by blanking the para they supported. We don't do this, we tag refs with  and then (or simultaneously) we see if they're recoverable. Both of these were trivially so. It took me less time to do this useful minor task than it did to revert your edit warring and pointless argument here.
 If the situation has changed, then by all means update the statement about the current state of the bridge. That might use these refs, it might not. However blanking sections because of a 404 is never the way to progress forwards.
 I do not have any special connection with either the bridge, Runcorn or the YMCA. Nor am I required to have them before editing this article.