Črnuče Bridge : Chidgk1 ( talk ) 16:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions .  Chidgk1 ( talk ) 16:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I don't think this article should be deleted.  It may be in a poor state at the moment, but otherwise the Črnuče Bridge (or its predecessor) has a long history starting in Roman times and was also prominent in World War II.  [27] [28] -- TadejM my talk 17:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Source here saying it reopened in 2014 after restoration..♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks. I have added that information to the article. -- TadejM my talk 17:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The article is informative about a site/structure that has had local/regional significance for millennia, and it is well sourced.  Doremo ( talk ) 18:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Seems to be a notable bridge, good job TadejM!  ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above.  Article has been significantly improved since the AFD nomination.  An image of the bridge could also be added if any exist.  Streetlampguy301 ( talk ) 21:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep As everyone has said "keep" I understand that as the nominator I can now change my vote as further discussion would be a waste of time.  Thank you to everyone who improved the article, which is now interesting.  Chidgk1 ( talk ) 06:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just remember that "article hasn't been expanded", and "is too short" isn't justification to nominate an article, only if you can't find any sources online. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] My nomination did not mention the shortness of the article.  Chidgk1 ( talk ) 12:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Even abstinence of online sources doesn't mean the subject automatically fails WP:GNG .  A09 | (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Chastity of structures is not a criteria for notability, last I checked.  ;-) llywrch ( talk ) 20:48, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep per TadejM and Dr. Blofeld. -- A09 | (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ TadejM : On the revert. The lead is supposed to summarise the article though. Your version has information not in the body! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi, Dr. Blofeld . As stated, feel free to edit the article as you see fit, but the bolded names should be written in the lead and please take care to preserve the article factually correct. Only the railway bridge was destroyed in World War II, but the road bridge was not as it was used as a checkpoint. -- TadejM my talk 17:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions .  Necrothesp ( talk ) 13:29, 19 December 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep