Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devil's Gap Footpath

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 delete. L Faraone 01:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Devil's Gap Footpath[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources seem to be mostly primary, have been unable to find much secondary coverage — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A merge is viable too, in my opinion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Locally significant; notability is attested by multiple media sources (four are cited in the article from three different news outlets). The principal sources for the article are published by the government, national heritage and national conservation bodies, so there is no problem with reliability. Prioryman (talk) 08:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, some very local news sources describing one minor event (the 6-week works done on the footpath), making it dubious that it is even locally significant (at least not any more than any other road and footpath in a small city). The "principal sources" are not independent, and of those, the ones by the "national" heritage and conservation bodies (note that "national" in this case means "the main body for a city with 30,000 people") are information boards erected along the path, not books or major other publications. It is rather telling that the history section has in reality one supposed fact about the path, i.e. that it has been in existence since before 1779. This is supposedly sourced to the information boards. The rest of this section, which is half of the article, is not about the path at all. The second major part of the article is about the refurbishment; these are works of utterly minor importance, which are going on in every city in the world at all times, installing picnic tables and waste bins and unclogging drains. The purpose of an encyclopedia, not even one as large as Wikipedia is not to describe every road and footpath in the world, and that's why in general having only some minor local sources (and even there only some small articles) is not considered sufficient to base an article on. Note that it gets 26 Google hits, not even excluding Wikipedia; it is not mentioned in even a single Google Books result or Google News Archive result. It did get a Gibraltarpedia QRcode picture earlier on the day that the article was created on Wikipedia[1], uploaded by an editor whose article on Wikipedia was co-written by the same author that wrote the article now up for AfD, but that probably tells more about how the Gibraltar Board of Tourism and Gibraltarpedia are steering which articles are created here, instead of the spontaneous creation of article for truly notable subjects by truly independent authors. The coincidence that another main driving force behind Gibraltarpedia approved the article for DYK and was the first to argue for keep here is too insignificant to notice though. But anyway, if such shenanigangs would lead to neutral articles about notable subjects, I wouldn't care; but a footpath of Gibraltar, which has gone unnoticed outside Wikipedia, is taking things a few steps too far. Fram (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Prioryman. If referncing the panels which have been drawn up by the Heritage Trust and Ornithological and Natural History Society (so reliable) is the problem I could reference the original sources but I need a little time - I'm currently on holiday returning Friday next week. I've intermittent mobile WiFi access which isn't great for editing. The close paraphrasing mentioned in the DYK review was fixed. Sorry about this, I wrote the article in the early hours of the morning. I hope I'm not being accused as 'being told' to write this article by Fram... Anyway, I hope all an AGF and wait till I get back to reply properly. Thanks, --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 10:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide secondary sources which are about the path, and not standard "news" about its restoration, that would be much appreciated. Although I agree with Fram about the referencing here, I never intended to imply that you were told to write this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I assume GF. What else can one assume when an employee of the Government of Gibraltar uploads pictures of QRcodes for nonexistent Wikipedia articles, and that hours later another editor starts writing said article. Of course this has nothing to do with things like promotion and tourist attraction[2]. Well, one can also assume that they jumped the gun a bit here, at least. It would be better of course if you can provide more sources, but they will also need a lot more on the footpath to actually establish notability. So far, it has none. Fram (talk) 11:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you're not assuming GF - this is a straight-up bad-faith accusation, yet more in the same strain of bullshit conspiracy theories that you and a handful of other dead-enders have been peddling for nearly a year now. Stop it now. Prioryman (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So it is just a coincidence that the Government decides to include QRcodes for non-existent articles, and that hours after an employee of that Government posts photos of the path and the QRcodes, the article is created (and later DYK'ed)? We now let the Government (or Board of Tourism) of Gibraltar decide which articles to write, and when? But promotion has obviously nothing to do with it? Stop it now indeed. Fram (talk) 06:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, here we go again with the bullshit conspiracy theories. When the QRcodes were being printed, my Tunnels of Gibraltar article (which is also QRcoded) didn't exist in mainspace either but was in preparation. The uploader (he's a teacher, archivist, and noted local historian - hence his involvement in writing the inscriptions - not a member of the tourist board) was aware of this and QRcoded it in advance of the article reaching mainspace. None of these articles were written for any promotional purpose or at the instigation of the tourist board and claims to the contrary are lies. Prioryman (talk) 06:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you both cut back on the vitriol against each other, which has been going on for over a year? Fram believes these articles are inherently promotional, and almost nothing is likely to change his/her mind. Prioryman insists that there is no undue promotion going on, a position which he is about as likely to change as I am to climb Mount Everest on an emu while wearing a tinfoil hat. Let's just follow behavioural guidelines, AGF on Gibmetal, and give him/her a chance to add some further sources (if they are available). Gibraltar(pedia) has been fought enough, and across a whole bunch of battlefields which weren't meant for the purpose, and now it's time to focus on this article and (here) its notability or lack of it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources are actually not bad, considering the fact that it's a footpath. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 01:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Which sources would that be? Fram (talk) 06:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Vox Gibraltar / Gibraltar TV / Gibraltar Chronicle. Just dealing with the renovations yes, but why is that important? 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only sources which seem to be worth considering here in terms of evaluating notability are "Upper Rock pathway renovations almost complete". Your Gibraltar TV, Reformed path for Devil's Gap". Gibraltar Chronicle and "Devil's Gap Footpath Renovation". Vox Gibraltar News. Each of these sources provides only a paragraph on this walking path, and is focused on its recent renovation. As such, I don't think that notability is established. If there's scope to upmerge this to an article on walking paths in Gibraltar or whatever that would be OK in my view, but as a stand-alone it doesn't seem viable. Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the surface the article looks fine, but examining the sources I do think Fram and Crisco have a point about lack of secondary sources. Is "Your Gibraltar TV" a reliable source? Generally I'd consider a historical path or road which has been subject to government restoration as notable, I have no problem with the existence of the article or a code in Gibraltar for it, but I'd like to see a few more reliable sources secondary demonstrated here.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't nearly every road in the world been "subject to government restoration" at some point? In many countries, construction, restoration and maintenance of roads and paths is one of the tasks of a (local or supralocal) government. Fram (talk) 12:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great point. Street restoration happens in Sioux City, Iowa, for example, almost every week. Even though it usually isn't needed and is very annoying, but still. SL93 (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly a great point, I had envisaged what Fram would say, which is why I added the word "historical", meaning a road of historical significance which is considered important enough for making a heritage site or restoration. It is disputable how much significance this particular path had. If this is really notable, it'll have coverage in secondary sources.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be said that it was restored because it was historical, rather than being a common thing for all roads/paths/trails? SL93 (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)As far as I can tell, the recent work on the path was not a restoration (in the "return to its historical state") but a simple "rejuvenation", making it more accessible for tourists, without much care for preservation or reconstruction of the historical path (if such a thing existed). If there are sources that make it clear that this path has historical significance (beyond being on a map of 100 or 200 years ago), then of course the whole notability aspect changes. But the Via Augusta it ain't. Fram (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I want to see if anybody can find anything further first though..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with but 153 hits on Google it is not even remotly notable. The only sources are about the path being renovated, how does it even pass the GNG? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing notable about a footpath being renovated for tourist-attracting reasons, that's standard government fare. What isn't standard though is using the Wikipedia to prop up a government's tourism bureau, so hopefully this is just the first shot across the bow of a salvo that finally sinks the Gibraltar-pay-for-exposure shtick. Tarc (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Upper Rock Nature Reserve. Clearly not notable in its own right, but it is a plausible search term and a small amount of detail about the renovations could be included in that article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per sourcing concerns and notability, although I'd also support a merge as mentioned by DA above. Intothat darkness 17:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability concerns: I too get nothing but some governmental sites and some strictly routine news notices about working being done on it. Mangoe (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sourcing is the problem. The local TV website doesn't cut it. Drmies (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This does not appear to be a historic or noteable footpath. The article itself concedes that a different route was used in prior times, and much of the discussion is about historic routes other than this particular path. The blurb cited in the article from the construction company hired to do the recent renovation work also seems to show that this particular footpath was nothing more than an overgrown danger zone until recent government efforts to turn it into a tourist attraction. The company notes: "The path was fully overgrown in the past years and it was not a safe environment. In a short time-frame we managed in close liaison with the Government of Gibraltar to turn the footpath to a nice tourist attraction." A small town newspaper (Gibraltar has a population of 29,752) reporting on routine municipal repairs to a local footpath is not enough to deem the footpath encyclopedically notable in my opinion. Cbl62 (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative proposal to merge with Upper Rock Nature Reserve also seems plausible. Cbl62 (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Upper Rock Nature Reserve per The Devil's Advocate. (And have a redirect so the QRpedia code remains useful) TheOverflow (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are some independent sources, mostly referring to the rock chasm called "Devil's Gap" and mentioning in passing walking up a trail through it: earliest mention of "Devil's Gap" path is in a 1777 travelogue; 1811. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 03:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the sources in the article, the path in use in 1777 is NOT the path that is the subject of this article. Cbl62 (talk) 04:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the notability/sourcing concerns raised by Fram and second the concern expressed by Tarc. Re TheOverflow, we're not required to maintain the functionality of third-party interfaces. It was a bad idea in the first place for those codes to be placed before this article was bedded in. If it is deleted, I hope the parties responsible will learn a lesson from that. — Scott • talk 17:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point that there is no requirement to maintain the functionality of third-party interfaces (and I note that the third party interface remains not transferred to WMUK despite several announcements), but nevertheless I think the Gibraltar Government has acted in good faith, will be inconvenienced if functionality is removed and it's not really going to hurt things to have a redirect. It would probably be a good idea if those involved in the coordination of Gibraltarpedia QRpedia codes and articles let the Government/tourist board know of the issue, and that they waited until articles were in a stable form (and weren't likely to end up at AFD) before providing QRpedia codes. TheOverflow (talk) 23:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the Gibraltar government nor the tourist board had anything to do with the article or the QRcode linking to it. The information panel from which the article is linked (at a Wikipedian's suggestion) was produced by the Gibraltar Heritage Trust, an independent charity. Prioryman (talk) 04:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then let us not inconvenience the Gibraltar Heritage Trust. Hopefully, the Wikipedian who arranged the QRpedia code will let the Trust know of the issue. TheOverflow (talk) 11:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry (well, not really) but fuck the Trust. This encyclopedia has no obligation to prop up the business models of outside interests. If they are so hell-bent on linking a QR code to an informational page, perhaps someone should tell them that MediaWiki is free software, and that they are quit able to set up their own wiki articles. Tarc (talk) 12:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "business model" involved - it's a public footpath freely accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, without charge. The Trust isn't a commercial body, doesn't have any responsibilities for tourism that I know of, and doesn't gain or lose a penny from the QR code being present or not present or working or not working. Ironically, it would actually be Wikipedia's own reputation that would be hit if a QR code produced a 404 - that would just show Wikipedia up as being flaky. Fortunately that's not going to happen in this case, but if you're voting against this article just to spite a noncommercial charity group which isn't deriving any benefit of any sort from it, that's really not a sensible thing to do. Prioryman (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the technicalities of so doing, but perhaps the divert could be done at QRpedia/qrwp rather than Wikipedia? The Trust would not be inconvenienced, many of the concerns above would be addressed, the QRpedia folks demonstrate that they're not simply pumping out QRpedia codes - close to a win/win/win?. TheOverflow (talk) 00:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how it works, I'm afraid, so I can't comment on that suggestion. Prioryman (talk) 06:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, guys, but I just don't really see the notability as being there. It's just not quite strong enough. The content in this article would be much better placed in a broader article, whatever form that would take. Silver seren^C 07:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Andreas JN 466 06:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Upper Rock Nature Reserve per The Devil's Advocate and others (retaining redirect). The target should be an additional paragraph under Tourist Attractions. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, and also shameless attempt to use WP for promotion. Nothing worth saving or merging. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - minor coverage in local sources does not establish notability. I see no problem covering it w/i the park's article though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively Delete, or minor Merge or Redirect to Upper Rock Management Plan. Not notable for a stand-alone article per WP:GNG as nothing indicates substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Upper Rock Nature Reserve with redirect per The Devil's Advocate, TheOverflow and others above. --Bejnar (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2013 (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.