Deletion of Cappy Burnside

Comment: Far from nonsense, it is absolutely a primary source; if containing facts about a subject was enough to magically transform a document into a secondary source, birth certificates and court cases would suddenly be secondary, and this article would suddenly be flooded with "secondary" sources.  As it happens, though, failure of  forms no part of the nom's rationale.  Failure of WP:BIO and the GNG does.  For those keep proponents who claim that there is |significant coverage in reliable sources, feel free to specify what those may be.  For those who make OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, if you believe that there are political stub articles that do not qualify for articles, feel free to propose them for deletion.And I'll make one of those myself: good grief.  In the county in which I live, there's a bridge named for a city councilor.  There's a bridge named after a local (long, long defunct) United Spanish War Veterans post.  There's a bridge named after a local Marine private who died in Vietnam. (And sure, there's a Calvin Coolidge Bridge|bridge named after a President.) Being the namesake for a bridge meets no notability criterion, nor should
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:SIGCOV)