Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flat Bastion Road

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. No prejudice towards a future merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flat Bastion Road

[edit]
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)

Contested prod (with as reason "I don't do prods", for what it's worth). Nominated because "No indication of why this is supposed to be a notable road. No sources about the road are provided, only very passing mentions." Looking at the article and looking for further sources reveals that this road has some buildings, including at one time a school; has had work being done to it over the years, and that there live people, are located clubs, touristic companies, 2 parking spaces for disabled people, and that there was a minor dispute about the removal of parking spaces. Basically, this reads like virtually any other city or town street in the world. Fails WP:N. Fram (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A google map view actually shows it to be one of the major roads of Gibraltar see here. I'd imagine there would be plenty of resources in Gibraltar library or government documents which could be used to expand this fully.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looking at that map, the main roads seem to be Europa Road, Main Street, perhaps Queensway Street, ... This one doesn't seem to be at the same level of importance though (as far as such a thing can be seen from Google Maps, WP:OR comes into play here). As for your choice of sources, they are primary ones and don't help in establishing notability. Fram (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it can't be expanded further I think a merger into a Roads in Gibraltar would be the perfect solution. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the fact that that is a redirect to Transport in Gibraltar and doesn't discuss individual roads. To include a minor road there, only because we had an article for it, seems to be a case of WP:UNDUE. Fram (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see you're still an asshole then and haven't changed your belligerent ways. The idea is to turn it into a decent article on the major roads of Gibraltar. The article would equally cover each road so UNDUE would hardly be the case. Have some common sense Fram.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Fram's comments are not very creative, Dr. Blofeld, but please realize that this is a public discussion about a road in Gibraltar that will be preserved in our archives. You should comment as a professional (I know you are one), not as a furious kid, and above all, you should focus on the topic of this article. Nobody is interested in your outbursts. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Vejvančický. Fram and I have a long history in which he has often been unfavorable to my suggestions to merge articles, and I'm not "angry" in any manner or form. You can see this by the fact I approached this AFD with a comment and a constructive suggestions rather than an angry STRONG KEEP HOW DARE YOU!!! type response. I think he knows me well enough to know that I don't mean it in an offensive way but just to prod him that he is again being indifferent to what could be quite productive and that he is excessively citing wikipedia guidelines and that I'd much rather discuss how to productively use the content with him than be at odds. Its absolutely not your place to say anything and I'm baffled as to why you have, I can't possibly think of the positive benefits of your comments, it comes across as haughtiness and brandishing the "civility" stick which as many on here have previously said, the expectations of extreme professionalism and super civility on this website is one of its biggest flaws.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a public discussion about the encyclopedic notability of a road in Gibraltar, my place to comment as well as yours. I know nothing about the history of your disputes with Fram and I'm not interested. I don't play WP civility games, I just wonder what does this have to do with the Flat Bastion Road? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Answering on Vejvansicky's and Fram's talk page before anybody else gets all civil on me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge This is a major road in a historic city. Its name is distinctive and evocative and should remain a blue link to assist our readership. Whether the content pertaining to the road is substantial or not is of little importance in satisfying Wikipiedia's role as a gazeteer. Here's an amusing item about the trouble that residents of this location have with marauding apes. Warden (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Major road in a historic city" doesn't have anything to do with notability, and is too vague to be any sort of criteria; I think all cities would claim "historic" merit in some form or fashion. More importantly, where are the sources in the article that show notability? There are a whole lot of sources in the article, but not a single one gives any notability to the article. They are local newspapers talking about construction, or books that are not about the road, and only mention it in passing, if that, which is trivial coverage. The article fails WP:GNG by a long shot, However distinctive and evocative it may be. - SudoGhost 21:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec)Keep (or merge and improve the redirect Roads in Gibraltar) (I believe the redirect is not set in stone, Fram). This is verifiable geographical information ([1], [2], [3]) and I don't see any benefits in deleting this kind of content. Just my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources you listed are local newspaper articles about construction happening on the road; every local newspaper informs about any road that has construction. That verifies that the road does in fact exist, but that does not make a road notable in any way. I would find it odd if a newspaper didn't report on such a thing, it's completely routine. - SudoGhost 07:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that's a different argument. At least three people (Dr. Blofeld, Colonel Warden and Thine Antique Pen), and a "per Warden" from Prioryman, argued that the article was about a major road. No evidence to support this has been presented (yes, Google Maps, but that's hardly convincing). I also disagree with e.g. LauraHale's opinion, but that's a disagreement based on the value one gives to some sources and whether they convey notability or not. But this, that it's a major road, is just completely unsupported (see the statement below by Ryan Vesey for some thoughts on this). Fram (talk) 08:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well defining it as a "major" road is subjective of course. It isn't the Main Street of Gibraltar and is of lesser notability than Europa Road which you could probably define as more notable. But I'm pretty sure historically Flat Bastion Road has been very familiar to Gibraltarians and the military as it was the residence of many esteemed folk living on the Rock and some institutions. So that's why I define it as a road of note, and not just any old street of any town.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram, I don't have your access to sources on 13th century fortifications in Europe. (I'm in Australia and not a military historian.) Can you provide me some more information regarding the importance of the road to the city's 13th fortifications and the later siege of the area? As you've said it isn't important, I'd like to know more about this role to be convinced to change my mind. --LauraHale (talk) 09:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article claims that the road was constructed in the 13th century. I can't find any mention of the road in the source [4] (neither "flat bastion" nor the supposed older Spanish name "Senda del Moro"), but I may be missing it. I can tell you though that the 64 page book "The Fortifications of Gibraltar 1068-1945" by Clive Finlayson (also used as a source in the article) does not mention Flat Bastion Road (the Flat Bastion is mentioned, but the road isn't: [5]). I can't prove a negative of course, but I haven't found any evidence that this road played any role of importance in the fortifications or the siege. Fram (talk) 09:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I was writing the above while you were expanding the article, so my comments don't relate to the latest version of the article. Anyway, you have now added that the road was called "Baluarte de Santiago", but as far as I can tell, that's the name of the Bastion, not of the Road (see also User:Ecemaml/Nursery/List of Gibraltar placenames; not a reliable source, but it happens to state the same). The given book source even states "The Baluarte de Santiago is a flat bastion". Fram (talk) 09:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And the same applies to " In 1704, the road was known as Santa Cruz y plataforma de Santiago." No, the bastion was thus known. There is no source given about the road prior to 1830 or thereabouts, and no evidence that the road played any important role in the sige or fortifications. Fram (talk) 09:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And Delaware Dirt Track 45570 is?♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close to never; however, I still haven't seen the case made. This road doesn't seem to meet our requirements. The articles that are about the road specifically reference construction. That is a trivial mention that doesn't affect notability. There are newspaper articles about construction on most of the roads in my town; however, none of them are notable. Roads that are notable for the locations that exist on them should be referenced in a way that shows that. This is not a Fifth Avenue or a Champs-Élysées. Ryan Vesey 23:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit when I started it I was confusing it with Europa Road, I was thinking of the main road and the wall and the apes which is Europa I think. But our duty here is to assess notability based on coverage in reliable sources. A fellow wikipedian, an experienced one at that told me he grew up in Kentrigg and it is non notable. I'm accepting of articles on any district or road providing it has coverage in multiple sources. Give that we aren't paper I think we can cover towns in as much detail as can be imagined providing the content is sourceable. My feeling is that wikipedia is a much more impressive resource for having such articles than not. And no, you won't find this amount of coverage in sources for every street or every town. The vast majority you won't, that's how notability should be decided. When I look at articles for deletion I always ask myself first, does this article damage or worsen wikipedia as a resource..♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Gibraltar is not a big place and its geography measn that the north-south roads run horizontally, while the east-west ones tend to be steep. The article has a reasonable amount of content, and until that content is relocated elsewhere, we need to keep the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the many good reasons given above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable road. Anne (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I raised some concerns above and on the talk page of the article about the first paragraph of the history section, which is rather important wrt notability of the road, but which, if I am correct, is not about the road at all, but about the Flat Bastion itself instead. Can some people please check this and report their conclusions here? While not every detail of an article needs to be correct for an AfD, such a crucial part should be checked and taken into account before a decision is made, in my opinion. Fram (talk) 07:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • And by the way, inserting incorrect information in an article already up for AfD, and then claiming that the article can't be deleted per PRESERVE of that information, is gaming the system big time. Fram (talk) 09:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That depends what game you're playing. Some of us are here to build the encyclopedia and take pleasure in the accumulation of historical information for its own sake. I'm now quite interested to know why the road is also called Mr Bourne's ramp (La Cuesta de Mr. Bourne). Who was Mr Bourne and what was his significance? Perhaps this information is in some local history not known to Google? By preserving the article with its various tidbits and leads, we are able to gradually expand our coverage. Why should this information be only available to admins like yourself? (deletion really means admin-only as nothing is actually deleted). How would such a restriction assist our purpose? Warden (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article already presents interesting historical facts and is still being expanded. In properly documenting the assets of a city, principal or historic roads also require coverage. --Ipigott (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In light of Ipigott's first sentence, I have no comment about the state of the article when it was created (I've not checked the history), but its condition at the present time admirably demonstrates notability. Almost every street will get some news coverage, but when your street gets coverage in multiple books published hundreds or thousands of miles away from it and centuries apart from each other, you definitely have a notable street. Nyttend (talk) 22:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See [6]♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I looked at a few of the books, one is about "a flat bastion", not Flat Bastion Road, another was about a school that just happened to have the address of Flat Bastion Road, and literally nothing else was mentioned about the road. Not even the blogspot blog gives any indepth coverage, and that's not even a reliable source. I've looked through quite a few of the sources, and the only ones that even begin to address the article's subject are local primary sources. WP:GNG requires significant coverage by independent reliable sources, maybe I'm missing these sources but I don't see a single one. - SudoGhost 04:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've evaluated Fram's comment. I do not find it very compelling. I've not changed my mind as a result. The history, the sources, etc. for me demonstrate notability, historical relevance, etc. A stronger argument needs to be made that these factors identified by me should be ignored for me to change my mind. I've yet to see any additional compelling evidence that Fram has done additional research on the history of the road, examined texts at libraries, etc. to suggest a lack of potential available sources that would support this. Multiple languages. Hundreds of years of history. Just not impressed enough to ignore it to change to delete. --LauraHale (talk) 07:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which sources? I've looked through a whole lot of sources in the article, and not one seems to show even the slightest bit of notability, although it's possible I'm just missing the ones that give notability. Please see my reply to Nyttend directly above your comment. - SudoGhost 07:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bullshit. Sorry to be so blunt, but this is utter bullshit. There are no "hundreds of years of history", the oldest source about the road is from 1830. All the older sources do not mention the road at all. You based your keep on this misconception, I showed where this was false, and you simply ignore this. You are now asking me to prove a negative, which is a nonsensical request. Per WP:BURDEN, it is up to the people wanting to keep an article to show that sources exist, and that the sources given in the article are correctly represented. Could you please, for once, explain why the completely incorrect first paragraph of the history section is still present in the article? Why noone who is so interested in this article and does everything to keep it is apparently interested in getting it right, only in getting it kept? If you want to be taken seriously and your arguments given any weight at all, be honest, in discussion technique and in the use of sources. Fram (talk) 07:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not the article's talk page and we're not here to work upon the article. The purpose and scope of this discussion is purely to decide whether an admin should be empowered to use the delete function to change the status of this material and all its edit history so that only admins may read it. Argumentation about the fine details of the article and its sources are therefore inappropriate. It is sufficient for this debate that editors have determined that there's enough here that we may reasonably retain the material for further work. Warden (talk) 12:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussions about the sources of articles are inappropriate at an AfD? Editors have determined that many of the sources used in the article (and all the significant non-trivial ones) are not about the road. Ignoring that because it doesn't fit your "keep" opinion is just hoping that the closing admin will look at the votecount only, and ignore the actual merit (or, in many cases here, lack thereof) of the expressed opinions. I note that you haven't replied above to your claim about what is said in the "Lancet" article either, one of many claims about sources for this article which turn out to be incorrect. Fram (talk) 13:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Argumentation about the fine details of the article and its sources are therefore inappropriate." I'm somewhat shocked by that, I had to read it a few times to make sure I understood you correctly. Discussing the issues with the article's sources...is inappropriate at AfD? I don't know if you meant something else and got confused while writing it, but if the article's sources do not in any way show even the slightest bit of notability, AfD is the place to discuss it, and practice has shown that when sourcing issues are brought up at AfD, the editors that choose to ignore those issues find that their comments are not given as much weight in determining the consensus. "It is sufficient for this debate that editors have determined that there's enough here that we may reasonably retain the material for further work." Not by a long shot is this anywhere close to accurate, as shown by the lack of adequate sources for the article, and the editors asking for any sources that would show notability. If we were to go by the assertion that discussing the article's sourcing issues is somehow inappropriate at AfD, then perhaps that would have some measure of truth in the most basic sense of what you said. However, WP:N requires adequate sources, and this article comes nowhere close to meeting that very basic requirement. Editors ignoring the sourcing issue to proclaim that the article is "a major road in a historic city" means nothing towards showing notability if there isn't a single source to show that notability. - SudoGhost 20:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've looked through the sources in the article, and read every keep !vote in the AfD, but despite assertions that the article is notable, I don't see anybody explaining which references show notability other than local construction notifications. The fact that local newspapers have reported construction on the road is as routine as a newspaper gets; you would be hard pressed to find a single newspaper that wouldn't report construction on any road, that doesn't make a road notable in any way. There are many references about a school that happens to be on Flat Bastion Road, but not a single one of these sources goes into any detail about the road at all, the only time the road is ever mentioned is through describing the school's address. That is about as trivial as a source can get, and WP:GNG requires significant coverage, even if the school were notable, that notability does not get passed down to the road just because it happens to be on the road. Another reference was a census; that people live on the road does not make it notable. It's possible that I've overlooked some references that everyone else is seeing, and if that's the case please point them out to be, because the sources I've reviewed come nowhere close to establishing notability per WP:GNG, the most basic notability guideline. - SudoGhost 08:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does mildly amuse me that nobody, with the exception of perhaps one or two Gibraltar fellows perhaps, could have given a monkey's testicle about this article but for the Gibraltarpedia scandal. It would be the sort of article that would grow mould and need a jolly good dusting when somebody new bothered to edit it in like 2019. So yeah, if it was truly notable it would probably have got more edits and expanded at some point... But that's the case with most wikipedia articles. Even some of the worlds most famous rockin streets like Sunset Strip are in dire condition and poorly edited though.. Probably more amusing or downright worrying is that Sunset Strip is unsourced and this has 32 sources LOL!! But it is a fact that the vast majority of the world could not give a barbary ape's right nostril about this road.. But that's the case with villages in rural Turkey and the Solomon Islands... Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary however has had over 19,000 hits already within a few weeks of me creating it.. "take pleasure in the accumulation of information for its own sake" is exactly why we accumulate articles such as this and villages for the sake that somebody somewhere might want to read about it and get the same pleasure that wikipedia has a half decent article on something rather obscure. I don't know about other wikipedia but for me that's one of the most enjoyable aspects of the project that we are not paper and can explore a gigantic range of topics within reason if sourceable and for me decent articles on architectural pieces.roads etc which are not exactly high importance helps broaden this appeal and demonstrates what we could potentially cover. For me projects like Monmouthedia and Gibraltarpedia do exactly this and seek to bring lesser notable buildings and roads into coverage. I think its exciting to try to cover towns in this way and would like to see every settlement on the planet working towards a detailed coverage of their towns. Should we perhaps focus on getting major world streets up to GA status first? Absolutely. But wikipedia will always be built in a higgledy piggledy fashion with some bizarre choices for articles started at the expense of far more notable content which gets sidelined. But above all it is rather impressive how many sources have been found mentioning the road even if not in extensive detail..♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "But above all it is rather impressive how many sources have been found mentioning the road even if not in extensive detail.." No, it is even more impressive how many sources have been found that do not mention the road at all but are included as if they do anyway. Fram (talk) 13:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ever ate a Birdseye Waffle Fram? Looks just like the cellhouse doors of Alcatraz funnily enough. Well I've been guilty of the same sort of thing... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A non-controversial topic that contains areas of historical interest which are well worth developing. Wikipedia is a work in progress and I don't believe that anyone here can state with certainty that this won't develop into a very interesting article (even if it only ends up being one pearl on a lovely strand). Is it possible to add some sort of "let's revisit it in six months and discuss deleting it then" tag (mainly because I'm fairly certain that sources will continue to appear as people dig and discover)? As an aside, it really is a wonderful feeling to dive into the sources to research, and then add to an article such as this—all with the thought that you are helping to build an encyclopaedia. As a second aside, whenever I want to reassure myself that all is wrong with the Wiki-world (e.g. after watching delete discussions such as this), I simply go to List of Pokémon characters, pick one at random, and read. Today, it's Pidgey. Did you guys realise that "Pidgey appeared in the first television episode, Pokémon, I Choose You!, when the main character, Ash Ketchum, attempts to catch one. He fails when it uses its Gust attack to blow him away and escapes. Afterwards, it uses its Sand Attack to blind Ash, allowing it to get away"? Golly. GFHandel ♬  21:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you point out a single reference that contributes towards the notability of the article? "Historical interest" doesn't appear to be supported by a single source in the article. - SudoGhost 02:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My statement above still stands. On the inclusionist/deletionist spectrum, I would consider myself to be more inclusionist, that's why my comment suggested an outcome where the information was retained. I feel like the article is coming along nicely and I hope that it is kept even though I disagree with any argument offered so far for keeping the article. My comment earlier and now isn't based on my desire for this to be an article, but is based on my interpretation of policy which I feel doesn't allow this article. Ryan Vesey 22:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ipigott, GFHandel and others. Regardless of highly subjective personal interpretations of WP:N and other similar bureaucratic stuff, this absolutely non-controversial, totally "neutral", non-Advertisement article (with plenty of independent verifiable sources mentioning the subject of the article) was interesting and educational "waste of time" for me as an "average WikiPedia reader". Of course, I'm merely speaking from a personal "Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers" point-of-view so some people (who might believe that "Wikipedia exists to satisfy the strict rules that govern it") might still disagree with my suggestion ;-) Rndomuser (talk) 01:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have saved at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Flat Bastion Road a version of the article how it should really look like, with all incorrect sources, unreliable sources, or sources not about the road or anything on the road removed. It drops to 13 sources instead of 32. Most of those are rather trivial or in passing as well. Where is the notability? Where are the centuries of history? Where is the role this road has played in Gibraltar's past or present? What makes this a major road? Fram (talk) 07:52, 28 September 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&oldid=1137851725"