Bridges construction: However, as it stands this article does not actually make the case for being a coherent topic.  The parent article is not large and this child article appears to have few if any cites that support its topic claims (historical facts, engineering opinions, etc.).  The cites are for small specific details.  There are too many different types of bridges, each with own construction method, and each already has its own article.  And I agree bridges already has both well-cited history and a well-linked summary-style of the types.  DMacks ( talk ) 14:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : As the nominator for deletion under A10 .  Of course not all the content is an exact duplicate, but it appears to be a translation from the Russian article , and "Bridges construction" is essentially the same topic as bridges , so I thought A10 would work here under WP:SNOW of this ever being a keep at AfD.  Flemmish Nietzsche ( talk ) 14:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The same editor as created the enwiki article is the only substantive contributor to that ruwiki article.  That's not a license problem.  DMacks ( talk ) 15:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not saying it is a license issue, rather it's an issue with the ruwiki contributor trying to push their translation of their russian article onto enwiki when we already have an article on bridges , which again is essentially the same thing as "bridges construction".  Flemmish Nietzsche ( talk ) 15:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Gotcha.  Obviously not disputing that aspect.  DMacks ( talk ) 16:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] On the " Bridge " page there is no information about the methods and stages of constructing bridges.  Therefore, the " Bridges construction " page is planned primarily to describe various technologies for creating bridges, and these two pages will not compete with each other.  VasilijB ( talk ) 18:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History , Engineering ,  and Transportation .  ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hmm .  Having something on this seems a good idea.  Not sure what we have is it.  But not sure it's unsalvageable either.  Hyperbolick ( talk ) 01:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge (selectively) into bridge .  The overlap is too great.  gidonb ( talk ) 01:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete (or Merge any previously unused reliable sourcing into Bridge ).  Agree with DMacks view ("many different types of bridges, each with own construction method, and each already has its own article").  Paul W ( talk ) 09:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Selective merge is a suitable ATD here, as I share a lot of the concerns raised by the nom about the article, specifically about scope.  microbiology Marcus [ petri dish · growths ] 16:18, 20 June 2024 (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: merge