Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flat Bastion Road (2nd nomination)

Add links
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. Article appears to have been substantially improved WilyD 08:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flat Bastion Road[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Flat Bastion Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 October 2. Procedural nomination, I'm neutral. T. Canens (talk) 03:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Per improvements by Aymatth2, otherwise merge. Ryan Vesey 12:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which references added do you think improve the notability issue of the article? Your merge argument was that it didn't contain significant independent coverage, has this changed? If so, which reference(s) changed this? - SudoGhost 13:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "per WP:N, WP:SIGCOV, WP:OMGWTFBBQ, (insert other similarly subjective guideline here)" I'm actually not against it in any form and would much prefer it to be kept and be potentially improved, but watching all the nonsense nominations it already went through during last week I realized the fact that no matter what the article will not see the rest until a certain person will achieve his/her personal agenda. So let's just end all the petty arguing and finish this whole farce once and for all, shall we? Rndomuser (talk) 06:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for being an unremarkable street without significant coverage beyond normal repair works and very minor local news. While a merge is better than having a standalone article on this, it doesn't make much sense to create articles listing non notable streets. Looking at the list of "planned articles" at Wikipedia:WikiProject Gibraltar/to do doesn't give the impression of being restrictive at all. There is nothing that sets this road apart from millions of other roads in every town and city in the world. It hasn't played any significant historical role, isn't a touristic or shopping highlight, isn't a major thoroughfare, isn't renowned for its scenery, ... Fails WP:N. Fram (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per WP:SK, "The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion" and so there is no case to answer. Wikipedia still has the function of a gazeteer per WP:5 and so a historic placename like this should remain a blue link. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing not deletion. Warden (talk) 09:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you read the "speedy keep" argument you propose completely? Including the "Exception: If the nominator indicates that the nomination is procedural in nature, then the nomination is ineligible for speedy keep. This includes a "relist" result from deletion review[...]"? part? Your speedy keep is clearly invalid here. As for the 5P, that says that "It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." "Incorporating elements of" doesn't mean "every street that may perhaps be mentioned in a gazetteer should be a bluelink here". It is generally excepted that we include all geographic features (mountains, rivers, ...), and all officially recognised populated places (cities, towns, ...). Below that level, the general notability guidelines are the ruling factor. Notable streets may get an article, non notable ones don't. Fram (talk) 10:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is our policy that Wikipedia is neither a bureaucracy nor a forum. We're here to write articles of this sort, not to have interminable discussions which loop back on themselves so that they never end. To have a deletion discussion, we require a clear statement of the supposed problem requiring deletion. The article has been subject to change and continues to be edited. A pointer to earlier discussions is therefore inadequate as grounds for a new discussion. It's like habeas corpus - a fundamental principle of law - that charges should be clearly stated so that prisoners are not kept indefinitely in limbo. See also Jarndyce and Jarndyce. Warden (talk) 10:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is our policy that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy". That has to be the most self-defeating argument yet. As for "the object has been subject to change", yes, the fabrications that lead to the keep result of the previous AfD, and the exposure of them that lead to the "relist" at the DRV, have finally ended in the version I suggested as being a fair base of discussion being implemented (not by me). So we now have a decent, broadly correct article to base an AfD on, instead of the travesty you defended and aggravated last time. If you (and a few others) had played things fair the last time instead of ignoring our most basic policies, then one AfD would have been sufficient. But it is clear that policies only count when they fit your preferred result, and can safely be ignored otherwise. Your "speedy keep" above is a nice example, your blatant misuse of sources in the previous AfD is another. A fundamental principle of law is that you don't fabricate evidence nor lie to the court. If you want to invoke normal rules of law here, you should have long been blocked. Fram (talk) 10:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And here come the personal attacks. The thing is, we've had all this already and it's time to say enough. Warden (talk) 10:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm commenting on your edits. The content you contributed and defended was a bunch of lies. It's indeed time to say enough, that's why we have this new AfD and that's why you should be blocked. If you can't be trusted as an editor, you have become a liability. But that's something for a different forum. Fram (talk) 10:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calling someone a liar is a blatant personal attack; a well-known breach of parliamentary procedure. The facts about this road seem fairly indisputable and so the context here is bizarre. Warden (talk) 11:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep/merge I am content to have an article on the road but what information actually exists about the road I think can be fully summarized in Streets in Gibraltar#Flat Bastion Road without damage. I think deleting it completely would not be productive and that the coverage which exists is at least worth a mention in a list.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thanks to the great work of Aymatth I think this meets requirements.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: Merge: Per WP:ILOVEFRAM and avoiding WP:BATTLEGROUND. --LauraHale (talk) 10:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC) Note: Believe it passes WP:GNG and merging in would actually be WP:UNDUE. The size and available sources mean that it would likely need to be spun out again so while merge/speedy delete, no bias against recreation as independent article per WP:GNG and WP:UNDUE but at the end of the day, I think avoiding WP:BATTLEGROUND should be the priority. --LauraHale (talk) 10:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge (though I can't see anything worth merging that's not in the target article already): No evidence of notability for this road in reliable sources. My own Google searches turned up nothing even faintly promising in terms of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. It's basically an unremakable and WP:Run of the mill street, with coverage limited to news reports of road maintainance and the like that are of local interest only. This is by no means one of the major streets of the colony. Claims for historic significance are specious, as this applies to the bastion itself, and not to the road, which is of little, if any, historic significance. Notability is not inherited applies here. Not sure if there's even anything worth merging. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:GHITS, google searches are not a reason to delete. In my experience, local libraries will hold good material about such topics and they are not known to Google. Local archives are the sort of place that the Gibraltarpedia project is well suited to investigate and they should be given reasonable time for such work - the article was only created a few days ago. Warden (talk) 10:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And here we go again... "the article was only created a few days ago."? 17 July 2012, or 85 days ago. Fram (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We create articles based on actual relaible sources, not on the faint hope that someday, somehow, somewhere someone might perhaps find adequate sourcing in some hypothetical dusty basement or hatbox. If someone actually does do the research you suggest and come up with reliable sources that warrant writing a self-standing article, there is nothing to prevent them doing so in the future. The article as it now stands will not be of any help to them. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article contains much useful geographical information which is nicely formatted and reasonably well presented. Deletion would be obviously disruptive to the process of development is it would make all this and its history available only to admins. There seems to be no reason for such disruption and the nomination does not provide one. You cite WP:Run of the mill but that is just an essay and we require policy-based reasons here. Our actual editing policy tells us to preserve such useful building blocks. Warden (talk) 11:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to cite WP:GHITS as an argument to avoid, you probably shouldn't then reply with an WP:ARTICLEAGE or WP:ITSUSEFUL rationale, because those aren't reasons to keep an article any more than WP:GHITS is a reason to delete it. - SudoGhost 11:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning is grounded in policies such as WP:PRESERVE and WP:5. Warden (talk) 11:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
None of that is even remotely supported by WP policies, including the ones you cite. And your disruption argument is blatantly dishonest and uncivil. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia's role as a gazetteer is well established by practise and policies such as WP:5. That's why, when you click random article, you often find obscure settlements such as Calflax, California, as I found just now. These have no special claim to fame but we cover them all regardless. It's much the same with all placenames and I regularly have success defending them here at AFD such as the recent rash of nominations of streets in Kansas City such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southwest Boulevard (Kansas City). Topographical features and places are commonly well documented in geographical works such as atlases and so it's easy to verify the basic geographical facts. Nominating such places for deletion is disruptive because it generates useless pages like this discussion which waste the time and energy of our volunteer editors. That goes double when the discussion is repeated and protracted, as in this case. Warden (talk) 08:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An article that has no third-party reliable sources cannot adhere to WP:NPOV. Your reasoning is not grounded in WP:5 at all, and WP:PRESERVE says to "Preserve appropriate content." WP:N and WP:UNDUE both determine what is appropriate. I'm sure you believe your reasoning is grounded in these policies, but if they are you haven't explained why other than WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ARTICLEAGE, and these arguments are not very convincing ones. - SudoGhost 11:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:OMG and WP:BURO, we shouldn't waste our time wikilawyering through all those WP links, though I could if I had to, believe me. My point for you is that you, yourself, seem content to work on other topics with marginal notability and of limited general interest such as linux distros like Parabola GNU/Linux. Please live and let live per WP:SAUCE. Warden (talk) 08:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So when you cite WP:5 et al it makes your comments policy-based reasoning but when that's shot down, it's suddenly wikilawyering. That's a rather hollow and disingenuous response to being disagreed with. I appreciate that you tried to go through my contribs to look for something, but I'm not exactly trying to keep articles in my interest area just because they exist, including the one you linked above. You should have looked a little deeper. - SudoGhost 04:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article has plenty of sources, but not a single one of these are a third-party reliable source that describes the subject with any more than a trivial mention. The article fails the most basic notability criteria. Without such sources, the article has no third-party sources to keep the article in a neutral point of view, and an article that cannot follow a core content policy has no place on Wikipedia, no matter how useful it may seem. - SudoGhost 11:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Streets in Gibraltar, which seems the most obvious home for the content. Keep. I'm impressed by the work that Aymatth has done; it makes a decent stand-alone article now. A little less hysteria and aggressiveness from Fram would be helpful, too. Prioryman (talk) 11:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm aggressive because I can't stand editors who think all means are justified in keeping articles, including deliberately misusing sources (and policies) and lying. I'm not really hysterical though. Fram (talk) 11:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's already a section on this road in that article, and what's already there seems a bit WP:UNDUE for the sources given. What are you suggesting there is to merge? - SudoGhost 12:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That article hasn't been written properly yet!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why on earth are you bringing WP:UNDUE into this? That refers to the amount of weight we give to a particular viewpoint, not how much we write about a a specific subject within an article. If we have the information on Flat Bastion Road, we expand that section. When we get the information on another street, we expand that section. This is all part of a process called building an encyclopedia. Ryan Vesey 16:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you've read WP:UNDUE completely, while it does discuss viewpoints, that's not all it entails: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." There's already content in the article, and what's already there is already WP:UNDUE given the sources that exist in either article; there is nothing to merge. - SudoGhost 16:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's continue reading, shall we? "For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic". This falls under none of these categories. An article like Streets in Gibraltar is a collection of overall topics that should be filled with whatever information we have. Information on Flat Bastion or Flat Bastion magazine would be undue in this case. Ryan Vesey 17:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Facepalm Yes, because if something isn't listed as an example, it clearly falls outside of the scope and policy should be ignored. You believe that because this situation isn't given as an example that it isn't WP:UNDUE? By all means, which sources do you think make it WP:DUE? You said "An article like Streets in Gibraltar is a collection of overall topics that should be filled with whatever information we have." and that seems to identify your issue, what you're saying suggests that you believe that Wikipedia is an indiscriminate collection of information. That is not the case. That article, which itself is not likely to remain on Wikipedia, already contains information on the road. What is there is already WP:UNDUE given the very poor sources presented, there is nothing worth merging that is not already present. WP:UNDUE applies whether you want it to or not. - SudoGhost 18:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong. The other article is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is fulfilling Wikipedia's role as a gazetteer, this article goes beyond that. The other article is clearly notable. There is no limit to what can be written about a notable article. There is nothing that says subject A isn't as notable as subject B, so subject A is limited to 23 kb. Once a topic is notable, there is no requirement that a source used in that article is talking specifically about the subject. It is only required that the sources support the fact stated in the article. Unless you have an argument saying that none of these sources support anything in the article, I do not understand what problem you have with those sources. In addition, can you please point out one thing that would make Streets in Gibraltar an indiscriminate collection of information, specifically relating to the information that would be merged? Ryan Vesey 18:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That the other article is "clearly notable" is monumentally off the mark, and WP:UNDUE is the very thing you're suggesting does not exist. However, this discussion you're making would be appropriate for that article's AfD, which by the looks of that article will be soon. The point I was making was that there is no information in Flat Bastion Road that needs to be merged, because there is already information there about this subject, there is nothing that needs to be merged. - SudoGhost 18:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So your point is that because some information exists on Flat Bastion Road at the other article none should be merged? There is a large amount of information that does not exist in that article. Much of the History and Description section is not in the Streets in Gibraltar article. Ryan Vesey 18:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...and that's where Wikipedia policy comes into play. Per the lack of third-party reliable sources, there is nothing worth merging. There are no third-party sources in the Flat Bastion Road article that contain anything more than trivial mentions. To merge that much information into an article meant to contain every road would be inproportate and that is what the Wikipedia policy exists for. You're welcome to disagree, but a core content policy cannot be so easily dismissed. - SudoGhost 19:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not dismissing the policy! I've explained to you multiple times how WP:UNDUE isn't meant for this situation. You are free to have a different interpretation of WP:UNDUE, but you do not have a monopoly on the interpretation of the policy. The entire purpose of the policy is to prevent minor viewpoints to be written about as if they are major viewpoints. The policy goes on to create stipulations so that minor events (not viewpoints), don't become a large part of a biography giving that biography a point of view that isn't neutral. Wait a second, neutral? Did I just mention neutral? Let's see where WP:UNDUE is, shall we? WP:UNDUE is otherwise known as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight. That section is a subsection of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Achieving neutrality. The only purpose of what is stated in WP:UNDUE is to maintain a neutral point of view. I'm sorry, but this is so far away from a discussion on neutrality that WP:UNDUE isn't applicable in any way shape or form. Furthermore, any aspect of WP:UNDUE that you are using to state that the sources aren't good enough is irrelevant because this isn't a neutrality issue. If this doesn't convince you that WP:UNDUE, your interpretation of it is such that further discussion on this issue is completely pointless because it would be impossible to come to any sort of mutual agreeable decision. Ryan Vesey 19:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying the policy doesn't apply, solely because it's not specifically listed as an example (examples, last time I checked, are not definitive lists). You're selectively using the "viewpoints" aspect of WP:UNDUE as a means to dismiss the rest of WP:UNDUE, the "aspects" part, that actually pertains to this content. If WP:UNDUE says "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." you can't then turn around and say "But it's not a viewpoint so WP:UNDUE doesn't apply" and suggest that an non-notable road is somehow justified in an inappropriate amount of content completely out of sync with the attention reliable sources give the road. You're more then welcome to disagree with the policy, but this is not "my interpretation", it is exactly how it is worded on the policy page. You cannot cherry-pick the policy and say that the parts you don't like are just someone's "interpretation". - SudoGhost 19:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to continue arguing about the applicability of WP:UNDUE with you, but I'll clear up one thing. Initially, I was applying WP:UNDUE to the situation and showing how it didn't lead to the conclusion you drew from it. In that case, I pointed to the examples of what undue does affect to show that this wasn't in the same area as those examples. Saying that I'm saying it doesn't apply solely because it isn't specifically listed is completely incorrect. The fact of the matter is, those are about a completely different type of things. But I wasn't thinking in those earlier examples. I had no reason to discuss how to apply WP:UNDUE. As I pointed out in my last response, and you so easily ignored, WP:UNDUE is about a different subject entirely. It is about the neutrality of a topic. We aren't dealing with an issue of neutrality. That's what makes trying to apply WP:UNDUE so difficult in this case. Hopefully that clears up my point to you and anyone else. Ryan Vesey 22:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The entire point of WP:UNDUE is that it is not neutral to provide a disproportionate amount of information about a non-notable aspect of a topic, that's what the fourth paragraph says, the one you seem to be overlooking each time. WP:UNDUE is very clear about this: "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." You're trying over and over to say that WP:UNDUE is "not how much we write about a a specific subject within an article" when the policy itself says in no uncertain terms something completely to the contrary (depth of detail, quantity of text). When you're saying one thing, and the core content policy says another, I'm pretty sure we go with policy not your idea of what it should be. You're welcome to open a discussion at WP:NPOV to try to change this wording, but until then you're arguing against something the policy specificially says, and that policy that applies to all articles on Wikipedia, including this one. - SudoGhost 01:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is about providing information rather than about preventing it. I personaly have no use for the information in this article but I think someone else might. And the notability guidelines must not be misused as a means for censorship but as a protection against disinformation. The article is clearly no disinformation but one can have doubts about its value for oneself. However, that must not be the yardstick for notability. Therefore, I vote keep. CeesBakker (talk) 13:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That someone might find the information useful is not an indicator of encylopedic merit. When there are no third-party reliable sources, how can an article adhere to WP:NPOV? An article that cannot comply with a core content policy doesn't belong on Wikipedia. The information doesn't need to be a Wikipedia article to be useful information. - SudoGhost 14:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability has nothing to do with censorship or protection against disinformation. I see no reason why anyone would want to censor this article. If people don't sell comics in a computer store, it doesn't mean that they are censoring them, just that they fall outside the scope of their store. Similarly, notability is one of the guidelines and policies defining what is inside the scope of Wikipedia, and what isn't (WP:NOT is another one). The current article has no obvious disinformation, and no need for any censoring, but still must meet WP:N. Your !vote doesn't make much sense in that regard, and doesn't seem to be in line with what notability is actually about. Fram (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Streets in Gibraltar. Article shows enough notability for Wikipedia. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it doesn't, not by a long shot. No notability has been shown in any capacity. If you think there are sources that the rest of us aren't aware of, please share them. - SudoGhost 16:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do the sources in Enzo Petito confer notability?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF to see why your argument is not valid in this situation. Livewireo (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not looking at subject matter, I'm looking at sources. It is common to compile sources which only contain a brief mention to write articles. A lot of quite notable film actors who only had very minor roles don't have extensive coverage either, same goes for many roads in the US with little more than maps as sources. Why does Delaware Route 92 meet notability requirements based on nothing but maps. Where is the extensive coverage in reliable sources? Its almost as if you expect a book devoted to this road. I honestly don't think there is a single thing you could find on this road which would change you mind on it. From what I can see if has more coverage that Delaware Route 92 in publications and many other roads we have on here. You can give the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument but when making a decision about content we must compare it with other articles. Half of the roads in the states have extremely poor coverage, next to nothing in books yet articles are built based on map observation.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • It doesn't matter what exists on some other article, that's not going to somehow make this one more notable. If you think another article is insufficient, tag it or nominate it for deletion. However, that another article is also not notable doesn't somehow convey notability to this article. - SudoGhost 18:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Streets in Gibraltar, seems like the best way to present the information we have. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, changing to keep per recent improvements. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is now too much content for merge into an omnibus article. There have been past attempts to strip this article down to a discussion of today's physical road. That is wrong. Think Wall Street. There has been commentary on different events associated with this road for almost 200 years. It is notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing added since the start of this discussion is worth merging though. The names of some families living there now yields five "sources" (actually five instances of the same source of course), but none of it is of any encyclopedic value. We don't list the families living in a village, road, neighborhood, ... just because we can find the information in a census, telephone guide, or other similar list. Not every bit of information that exists needs to be in an article. Comparing it to Wall Street is rather over the top. Fram (talk) 07:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, both per my comments at the last AfD, and procedurally, as the DR admin noted "no consensus" for a proposal to "restart from scratch" at AfD, and then did so anyway. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Streets in Gibraltar. Verifiable and referenced geographical information. Deletion would be a disservice to our readers. WP:COMMONSENSE. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you really dredged the depths of WP:ATA here: WP:ITEXISTS, WP:ITSIMPORTANT, WP:VALINFO and, apparently, WP:EVERYTHING, all while ignoring WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL and, most of all, WP:GNG. Don't see much WP:COMMONSENSE here. Try again. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Our opinions may differ, Dominus. Wikipedia is strong mainly because it is detailed and comprehensive. I don't think we should include everything, but I will always support preservation of well developed articles on geographical topics. It's just my opinion. Please, respect it. WP:COMMONSENSE is a part of WP:IAR, so you can take it as such (in this context). Btw, thanks for all the links. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All the attention given to this article has served to improve it substantially with lots of interesting new content. Far too much to include in the Gibraltar streets list. Now even more "notable" than before. --Ipigott (talk) 09:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – it was perfectly reasonable to bring the article to afd initially in its original state but it would be ludicrous to afd it now that it is both embiggenned and entirely cromulent. Oculi (talk) 10:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable. Why are we pretending that this is anything other than the backlash to GibraltarpediA? The above comment with regard to Streets in Gibraltar, "which itself is not likely to remain on Wikipedia," and the personal attacks make that abundantly clear. Anne (talk) 10:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not everything is about GibraltarpediA, you know. Editors like Colonel Warden aren't even a part of the project. Lies are lies, no matter who says or repeats them. Even in this AfD, Colonel Warden seems unable to use correct arguments, instead twisting reality to fit his opinion. Defending people or edits only because they are part of or in the scope of a project you like is not the way forward. A project should be here to improve Wikipedia, not to defend its articles and editors at all costs. The article is now at least based in reality, whereas it was largely a work of fiction during most of the previous AfD (not at the start!) and during the DRV. Fram (talk) 10:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since its unusual renomination the article has undergone improvements.[1] A lot of coverage has been found, of all the notable things happening on that road and the things along it. I wish we had a proper guideline for roads, bridges, canals, and whatnot, since that would save of us the trouble of these reoccurring debates. Dream Focus 10:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is a better option than merging with Streets in Gibraltar. That article is far from complete, with a number of headings with limited content. If all street listed had similar coverage to this article, that article with be overburdened. The article is now aq substantiual one with a lot of references. There is quite sufficient centent to be worth its preservation. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Interesting article. Wikipedia has the notional purpose of being a universal repository of knowledge. The point of a universal repository is that it is all about articles that people find interesting to read or interestng to write. What's the point otherwise, except to allow pontificators to pontificate? The only point of Wikipedia censorship is to keep out the untrue and the unjustifiably dangerous. Too many articles are merged because someone wise has decided they don't see enough importance in a subject to keep it separate. Then the development of the article focusing on a different subject means that you look for something on Wikipedia you need to find out about and you're redirected to an article now contains zero information about the subject of your search.Opbeith (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see WP:ITSINTERESTING. It might be interesting (everything is interesting to someone), but it isn't notable. It is not censorship to remove topics that are inappropriate as encyclopedia articles. There are travel guide wikis that would be more appropriate for this sort of thing. - SudoGhost 16:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think he means "encyclopedic" which oftens goes hand in hand with "interesting historical knowledge". I agree with what Ipigott said about it now containing some quite interesting info and that great image of it in 1885 is interesting and certainly more encyclopedic than previously. I don't think you can say the article is completely devoid, those historical accounts are of some value from my perspective, but I understand that you disagree.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that expansion, Dr. Blofeld, though I still think it's sad that Wikipedia is unable to tolerate the concept of non-abusive simple interest as legitimate.Opbeith (talk) 11:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per many others above, and the fact that verifiable information such as this is a wonderful way of building an encyclopaedia; and as a bonus, possibly encouraging new editors to the project. As an aside, I have a dream that those fixated on a "delete" outcome start to realise how out-of-touch they (as well as some of the policies that act as their exoskeletons) have become. Perhaps someone could let me know the outcome of this, because unwatching is the best way I know of to avoid the cringeworthy nature of this action. GFHandel ♬  19:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good grief, all this vitriol over one little road. Don't we have better things to do with our time? I've read the previous AfD and this one, and I have to say there seem to be a few people here who are truly desperate to get this article deleted and are insulting anyone who disagrees with them. Why, I have no idea. However, I can see no good reason to delete an article on an historic road in an historic city. And let's all remember that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and guidelines are not set in stone - too many claims here (like the one just above) that they must be followed to the letter. Rubbish. That's why we have AfD discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you are including me with those "few people", then I have not insulted everyone who disagrees with me; I have only highlighted the behaviour of a number of people who were so desperate to keep the article that they used the power of their imagination as arguments, inventing a completely fake history for the road, claming that source X said something which wasn't in that source at all, and/or misusing policy in rather blatant ways. If those people feel insulted, it is only because their own actions boomeranged against them. That you are seemingly more worried about people who have discussions within the Wikipedia rules, but who you disagree with, than about people you agree with but who feel that basic honesty and following policies don't apply when it is for the greater good (i.e. keeping an article on a road), is your problem. Fram (talk) 10:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per above. The article is certainly on par with the majority of other articles on roads considered as notable thus fullfilling our role as gazetteer. The extraordinary efford put into deleting this article is not due to its lack of notability, neither is it because of any harm that could come to wikipedia or the subject of the article (BLP) but because the article is associated with a wikiproject that some people want to erradicate. And as saind before WP:IDONTLIKEIT is still no deletion criteria. The effort expended against GibraldarpediA should really be put into creating other articles to balance the dominance on DYK. Agathoclea (talk) 09:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the effort put into deleting this article was because the subject appeared to be totally unnotable, and because a number of people then started fabricating notability for the subject by "accidentally" misreading source after source. If the article had been developed in a correct way (like it basically happens now, despite some minor dubious stuff and some severe source padding), we would naver have had a DRV, a second AfD, and a lot of editors who have lost whatever credibility they had before this episode. There are apparently a number of people who feel that it is perfectly allright to insert self-invented facts into articles if that helps in keeping them, and a number of people who fail to see any problem with that. Luckily, there are also a number of people (again from inside and outside the GibraltarpediA project) who play by the rules, e.g. adding (in this second AfD) information which was not available to me or most other commentators initially, but which seems to be reliable and correct. This second AfD is basically a model of how the first one should have gone, but which was made impossible by people like Colonel Warden, Prioryman, and (especially) Laura Hale. That Prioryman is also spearheading the GibraltarpediA project should be worrying to everyone involved with the project, Glam, or Wikipedia, but is not relevant to this article's fate. Fram (talk) 10:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Way too much sourced content to be merged into another article. The overall cumulative of coverage does qualify as significant and thus passing our notability guidelines. --Oakshade (talk) 01:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The large number of sources in the article does not mean it's a notable topic, the sheer number of citations or external links has no effect on a subject's notability. A phone book would create "way too much sourced content to be merged", that doesn't mean it's notable or appropriate. The article falls short of any of the notability guidelines; trivial mentions do not combine to create non-trivial coverage. - SudoGhost 01:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those links are not to WP policies or even guidelines, but to bias essays. The actual guideline WP:NOTABILITY even specifies as to what is needed in sources depending on the depth of coverage - "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources." Not all the sources are in depth so there is a higher number of them that cover this topic at that altogether qualify as satisfactory. --Oakshade (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The typical articles on roads on wikipedia look like Louisiana Highway 47...♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Trivial mentions do not add up to significant coverage of a subject, otherwise enough phone book entries would warrant an article on anyone. The notability guideline you mention says "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention", not "Throw enough trivial mentions into an article and it will amount to significant coverage". The article is poorly sourced and does not meet any of the notability guidelines. The "keep" arguments apparently realize this, and choose to skirt around the issues by claiming it is important or useful information, yet ignoring the fact that the notability of the subject is questioned. - SudoGhost 18:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Like it or not, a large majority here disagrees with you. With all due respect, I suggest that it's time to stop flogging the dead horse and move on to something more productive. Prioryman (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, a large majority of single-purpose accountss would rather claim the usefulness of the article rather than discuss or even disagree with the lack of notability, skirting the actual problem presented. - SudoGhost 03:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Now you're really grasping at straws. A large majority of single-purpose accounts? Name one. And your blue links aren't getting you anywhere. Ryan Vesey 03:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Nobody has shown a single way that the article is notable, which is kind of the entire point of the AfD discussion. You can say "notable" all day, but that's not how AfD is supposed to work. I've been asking for almost a month at the last AfD and the talk page for anyone to point out a single reference that would satisfy even the most basic guideline, and it's always dead silent on that front. Instead editors that believe the article belongs focus on "procedural" reasons or how useful the article is" as a reason to keep it. That doesn't cut it, and notability cannot be skirted around or asserted without a single explanation as to how this notability somehow exists. - SudoGhost 03:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It's not clear what the point of this AFD discussion is because the nomination is procedural; the nominator explicitly says that he's neutral; and no specific reason to delete has been provided. AFD is not concerned exclusively with notability and notability is not even a policy; it's just a guideline for which exceptions and variations are expected. Your focus upon the question of notability is therefore excessive. And, in any case, it appears that the consensus is that the place is actually notable and meets the requirements of WP:SIGCOV. Whether the coverage is trivial or not is essentially a matter of opinion rather than a mechanical rule. This is perhaps why notability is not a policy. Warden (talk) 10:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • However, short of anyone specifically asking me something, I'll shut up and let the closing admin decide. - SudoGhost 04:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Promise?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: if even merge would be the first option considering the size of the article "Flat Bastion Road" appears to be a legitimate spinout article from Streets in Gibraltar. Cavarrone (talk) 08:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reposted from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-267 (Kansas highway) (01:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)) While the comments specify U.S. roads, it seems possible that European roads are similar.

    Roads attract significant attention in the U.S.  One way that roads are used is to drive automobiles.  The citizens want their government(s) to pay attention to public roads, and keep them in repair.  Even small holes three- to six-inches deep become a matter of urgency.  If a road has an 8-inch drop off the height of a stair step, emergency vehicles are dispatched to close the road and re-route traffic.  The government keeps records and studies about road usage and traffic accidents.  In order for citizens to know where to find public roads to drive on, an elaborate system of maps exists, so that maps are sold at most filling stations and large retailers.  There are a variety of independent reliable publishers of maps that show the roads in detail.  In the electronic age, maps have become even more widely disseminated in electronic devices, with computerized voices that can talk about public roads.  The U.S. Post Office is another major institution in the U.S. that gives extensive attention to roads—the entire system of U.S. Mail uses a system called the "street address" that is tied to roads, which is a design that goes back more than a hundred years.  Roads are often mentioned on evening news reports in the U.S. to describe where various events occurred.  The point is that public roads in the U.S. will always easily pass WP:GNG.  Another point, elements of the gazetteer are useful as short articles.  Such articles need only be more than a statement of existence.  The issue for Wikipedia with roads is WP:NOT.

Unscintillating (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I saw it was a Gibraltar article and immediately thought delete. I didn't find any sources, but one look at the article and there's no room to argue that the topic does not meet WP:GNG, particularly given the sourcing of the article and the age and size of the road (which means it is going to be written about alot overtime.) The article is well written, at least a "B" (and not the "C" it currently has). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Carravone. Rcsprinter (Gimme a message) @ 16:23, 18 October 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Flat_Bastion_Road_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1068875457"