Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broadford, County Limerick
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Broadford, County Limerick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This article is a series of vandalisms without any single useful revision. A summary regarding the history of this article is given here. I suggest to delete this article to get rid of the embarassing history and to start from scratch. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I have reverted to an older version of the article that seems to be free of vandalism - (although it is unsourced and poorly formatted). Guest9999 (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This version is not free from vandalism. The population number is fantasy as the village landmarks which includes our lady of the snows church built in 1856 and Carnige library built in 1917. Please get rid of this article. The long continued history of vandalisms would be a burden otherwise. In addition, at least some of the revisions would need to be deleted as they include deflamatory remarks against named persons. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on your comments I have removed all of the article's content except for the initial line (is that one accurate?) as I couldn't find any sources with which to verify the information, do you know of any reliable sources which could be used to flesh out an accurate expanded article? Guest9999 (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, I do not find much about Broadford. When I saw the article for the first time, I suspected that the village could even be a fake as I didn't found it in my reference books. But I found it on the map :) Among all the vandalisms was a note telling that Broadford wasn't even marked in the very early OS maps. This sounds as if Broadford could be a late foundation. The only infos I can contribute is the population of 892 (census 2006, see here), the confirmation of its geographical location, and its Irish name Béal an Átha (see Discovery Series 72, ISBN 0-904996-87-5). According to the map, the village is stretched along the R515, located 4 km west of Dromcolliher at the junction with the R579. There is a school, a church, and a post office. In addition I have just found some additional infos at the parish web page (see here):
- Broadford is a relatively new village and was first recorded in the maps of 1837. The area grew as the village of Broadford began to prosper in the first half of the nineteenth century. The village is eight miles from the town of Newcastle West and is the meeting point of the R515 from the west and the R579 from the south.
- Some infos about the church in Broadford are to be found here. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, I do not find much about Broadford. When I saw the article for the first time, I suspected that the village could even be a fake as I didn't found it in my reference books. But I found it on the map :) Among all the vandalisms was a note telling that Broadford wasn't even marked in the very early OS maps. This sounds as if Broadford could be a late foundation. The only infos I can contribute is the population of 892 (census 2006, see here), the confirmation of its geographical location, and its Irish name Béal an Átha (see Discovery Series 72, ISBN 0-904996-87-5). According to the map, the village is stretched along the R515, located 4 km west of Dromcolliher at the junction with the R579. There is a school, a church, and a post office. In addition I have just found some additional infos at the parish web page (see here):
- Based on your comments I have removed all of the article's content except for the initial line (is that one accurate?) as I couldn't find any sources with which to verify the information, do you know of any reliable sources which could be used to flesh out an accurate expanded article? Guest9999 (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This version is not free from vandalism. The population number is fantasy as the village landmarks which includes our lady of the snows church built in 1856 and Carnige library built in 1917. Please get rid of this article. The long continued history of vandalisms would be a burden otherwise. In addition, at least some of the revisions would need to be deleted as they include deflamatory remarks against named persons. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, cleanup and source. Real places are notable. Corvus cornixtalk 21:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely that village is notable. I just suggest a start from scratch by getting rid of this history where this article started as the village of Broadford on the island of Skye, got transfigurated into the equally named village in County Limerick and was continously vandalized since then without any useful content which ought to be preserved. Given the work of Guest9999 to turn this into a survivable article, I would suggest to clean the history which also names people (apparently from Broadford) and attaches some name calling remarks to them. We do not need to preserve this. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We don't delete due to vandalism. If we did every film-star, politician and well most major articles would be gone. Fribbler (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The population figure isn't fantasy: 891 (for the electoral district) versus 1000-odd is wrong, but near enough. The Carnegie library was indeed built in 1917, architect Richard Caulfield Orpen (1863–1938). Orpen designed several such and painted watercolours. There's an interesting photographic catalogue of Irish Carnegie libraries available. Short biography of Orpen here. Not as significant a figure as his brother, but he like as not belongs on Wikipedia. Along with the town he designed a library for, of course. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for finding a reference regarding the Carnegie Library. I didn't knew that such small villages would also get a Carnegie Library and I suspected it to be fantasy like the other "facts" added to the article. And a population number that results from this edit is not exactly trustworthy, in particular if you look at the subsequent edit from the very same IP. Folks, I went through the entire revision history of this article, edit by edit, and found as good as nothing which appeared trustworthy to me, not to mention reliable. It is simply the sad story of a neglected article which was on nobodies watchlist but under constant attacks from vandalizing IPs. And all good faith edits were apparently restricted to fatal mistakes (e.g. hijacking the town of the isle of Skye) or minor edits like fixing typos that ignored entirely the vandalized contents. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, cleanup, monitor - and protect/revert as needed. It's definitely encyclopedic. I'll put it on my watchlist now :) - Alison ❤ 22:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just added a bunch of detail + a reference and tidied up a bit. Feel free to have a go :) - Alison ❤ 22:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, clean up and monitor. If we were to delete articles because they were frequent targets of vandals, just about every major city in the world would have its article deleted. --Oakshade (talk) 01:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep And repair the article. Doesn't meet any deletion standard presented. rootology (C)(T) 06:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You honestly mean revisions like this one or that one are to be preserved? Please consider our deletion policy where vandalism is named as a reason for deletion and in particular this policy which encourages to delete such articles even if they are notable. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but that is so not an "attack page". No way, and take it from someone who deals with attack pages all the time. There is far worse than that, and there are so many articles that have simple vandalism like that in their histories. There's also the matter of the GFDL, where it would be unacceptable to delete an entire valid, encyclopedic page on account of a handful of edits and, say, restoring the last revision. That would mean that the original authors would not be attributed and that would be a big problem - Alison ❤ 06:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please show me a single edit before my deletion request that is worth to be kept and needs to be attributed --AFBorchert (talk) 07:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Or let me make an offer: If this article gets deleted, I will write a replacement from scratch which is superior to anything seen before in that article within a few days. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way. I've contributed to it now, as have others and deleting it to create again would just deny them their rightful accreditation. We don't delete simple vandalism from articles, we revert it. It specifically states that in the deletion policy you quote above. The best option is to start editing now (as I have) and make it into an article we can be proud of. What's gone is gone - Alison ❤ 07:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See also, Wikipedia:Vandalism#How not to respond to vandalism; "Do not nominate an article for deletion because it is being vandalized. That's like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and simply encourages vandalism further." - Alison ❤ 03:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have tried to make clear that this is more than a case of simple vandalism, it is a long series of defamations which prolonged over multiple years. This policy asks for such material to be deleted (and not simply reverted) for very good reasons as otherwise the Wikipedia takes responsibility for hosting this libel. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Third time; if there are 'defamations' in the article history (and I can't see them), point them out and I'll oversight them myself, providing they're within policy - Alison ❤ 06:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have tried to make clear that this is more than a case of simple vandalism, it is a long series of defamations which prolonged over multiple years. This policy asks for such material to be deleted (and not simply reverted) for very good reasons as otherwise the Wikipedia takes responsibility for hosting this libel. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See also, Wikipedia:Vandalism#How not to respond to vandalism; "Do not nominate an article for deletion because it is being vandalized. That's like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and simply encourages vandalism further." - Alison ❤ 03:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way. I've contributed to it now, as have others and deleting it to create again would just deny them their rightful accreditation. We don't delete simple vandalism from articles, we revert it. It specifically states that in the deletion policy you quote above. The best option is to start editing now (as I have) and make it into an article we can be proud of. What's gone is gone - Alison ❤ 07:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Or let me make an offer: If this article gets deleted, I will write a replacement from scratch which is superior to anything seen before in that article within a few days. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please show me a single edit before my deletion request that is worth to be kept and needs to be attributed --AFBorchert (talk) 07:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but that is so not an "attack page". No way, and take it from someone who deals with attack pages all the time. There is far worse than that, and there are so many articles that have simple vandalism like that in their histories. There's also the matter of the GFDL, where it would be unacceptable to delete an entire valid, encyclopedic page on account of a handful of edits and, say, restoring the last revision. That would mean that the original authors would not be attributed and that would be a big problem - Alison ❤ 06:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You honestly mean revisions like this one or that one are to be preserved? Please consider our deletion policy where vandalism is named as a reason for deletion and in particular this policy which encourages to delete such articles even if they are notable. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2008 (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.