Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gooseneck, Isle of Man

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. postdlf (talk) 03:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gooseneck, Isle of Man[edit]

Gooseneck, Isle of Man (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)

Non-notable bend in a road. Any non-trivial info could be copied into Snaefell Mountain Course. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is one of 10 related AFDs:
  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Appledene
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ballacrye Corner
  3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ballagarey Corner, Isle of Man
  4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birkin's Bend
  5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandish Corner
  6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gooseneck, Isle of Man
  7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/School House Corner
  8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Signpost Corner
  9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2nd Milestone
  10. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/26th Milestone
--doncram 20:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The nomination proposes that we copy this information into another article and so deletion would be inappropriate as the edit history which we use as attribution would not be correctly maintained. Andrew D. (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No good coming from this, in terms of developing Wikipedia. This appears to be, in effect, a bunch of separate merger proposals, when an RFC about possible merger (and perhaps mediation or dispute resolution help) would be better. This is not likely to facilitate real discussion IMO, split 10 ways. It should be noted that new AFD proposals are explicitly for copying material into Snaefell Mountain Course, while obviously either "Keep" or "Merge and Redirect" are the possible outcomes. Outright deletion would not be justified. This relates to a bunch of previous AFDs, too, including:
The RFC was never concluded, as far as I can tell...no judgment of any consensus. It seems to me that re-advertising/restarting an RFC, or better, getting some respected mediator to assist, would be better than hassling through more separate AFDs again. --doncram 20:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I realize that this is a group of proposals, but it seems silly to copy this to each one, so consider this to be ten identical !votes. I find the "speedy keeps" here to be a bit precipitous since these articles do not have any references at all, something that is generally required for Wikipedia articles. I don't know why these particular articles are seen as exceptions to that rule. Also, merge is a valid afd result. There may be other mechanisms as well (there's rarely only one way to do things on WP), but I've seen other AfDs result in useful merging. I have not found significant resources for the three of these that I checked. Unless I am overlooking something, these do not meet General notability guidelines. LaMona (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's a notable location. I've added to the article. Sources available include book1,[1] book2,[2] and article1.[3]

References

  1. ^ David Wright (2013). 100 Years of the Isle of Man TT: A Century of Motorcycle Racing. The Crowood Press Ltd.
  2. ^ Geoff Crowther (2007). "Embodied Experiences of Motorcycling at the Isle of Man TT Races". International Journal of Motorcycle Studies.
  3. ^ Ray Moore; Claire Corkill (2012). "Memorials from the Isle of Man TT Races". (click "query" and search on location=Gooseneck)

There's also a promising source for which I don't have any access, but I found by searching in Google books on (Gooseneck "Isle of Man"). It's an academic article behind paywall:

  • "Spectators’ Negotiations of Risk, Masculinity and Performative Mobilities at the TT Races", by Allen Terry, Avril Maddrell, Tim Gale, and Simon Arlidge, (April, 2014), in Mobility, a Taylor & Francis journal, with full abstract

    This paper explores the particular assemblage of place, event and individual identity performances that occur each year in the Isle of Man in and through the TT (Tourist Trophy) motorcycle races. These road races are associated with a high degree of risk for the racers and the confluence of over 30,000 visitors and 10,000 motorcycles also presents potential risks for spectators and residents alike. Both motorcycling and risk-taking have been associated with particular forms of masculinity, notably hegemonic, working class and youthful masculinities. Using detailed surveys of spectators we argue that the TT races, while undoubtedly dominated by men and predicated on a cultural privileging of speed and skill, are grounded in varying combinations of determinate and reflexive attitudes to risk, reflecting the performance of a variety of gendered, ‘biker’ and wider identity-based positionalities. Findings also highlight a particular inter-relation of mobilities and place identities at the TT races and bring to light the highly significant and under-researched embodied, performative and emotional mobilities of spectators. The conceptual and methodological importance of (a) situated research of both mobilities and gender in specific place-temporalities and (b) wider surveys of motorcyclists to complement ethnographic studies of small cohorts are also stressed.

That last mentions Gooseneck, may have specifically studied spectators there, but I don't know. And then searching on "Spectators negotiations of risk" in that paper's title, i find:

Editors of this Gooseneck article and similar Isle of Man location articles should get and use all of these. I voted Keep above. --doncram 23:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment/question Why on earth are there no photos in the article? There are tons of Flickr photos available, and sometimes Flickr photos have compatible licensing, and there are great pics of racers leaning way over. I added External links to photos and to videos. The videos are great, too. I found one showing two-way traffic having a close encounter between a van and a motorbike, which is especially alarmingly as they passed by driving on the wrong side of the road. --doncram 23:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. I already looked at Flickr, there are only three very fuzzy snaps with the correct licence taken from the exit using a 'phone. It really needs an image taken from the entrance to show the 90 degree bend, the steep incline and the exit by the side-road. I'll check Geograph. I haven't looked at any other Flickr images with the 'wrong' licences, as from my experience, few Flickr users respond to requests to change the licence and it's pointless going to lengths when there is a nom with an obvious agenda. Co-incidentally, I have just arranged for a fairing image for Peel Engineering Company - an IoM located manufacturer - the licence was changed for me but is again wrong - thanks for the reminder, I'll try again!--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Photos in There were two suitable on Commons. Also, article has expand fourfold since original nomination. If this were a vote (it isn't) mine'd be Keep. -Arb. (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, as you've probably noticed I've added Commons Cat + more images into it.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's an historic location, the end of the tree-line and start of the Mountain section - not just a minor bend - and a traditional signalling point for TT riders' own race timings from their crew, slowing enough to get a good look on the exit.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Other nine now all closed as Keep. -Arb. (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2015 (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/Gooseneck,_Isle_of_Man&oldid=1078464053"