Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandish Corner

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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brandish Corner (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 18:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is one of 10 related AFDs:

--doncram 20:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 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) 14:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The debate about keeping individual very well known places on the Isle of Man TT course and not moving them to the article about Snaefell Mountain Course can be found at the deletion discussions pages and talk pages for the Windy Corner, Isle of Man. agljones (talk)16:09, 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:

• AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windy Corner, (perhaps the most salient of a bunch) followed by
• deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 November 27#Windy Corner, followed by
• RFC Talk:Windy Corner, Isle of Man#RfC: Proposed merge to Snaefell Mountain Course

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]

• Keep. Ludicrous, completely-expected, retaliatory, knee-jerk; more than just suggestive of abandonment and abuse of Wikipedia's supposedly-inherent GF ethos. I wrote in November: "I have now had the opportunity to go through contributions to ascertain that the same editor has nominated for deletion - or intends to nominate - many more TT Course locations than I originally surmised.", and, "Using the catch-all ploy of 'notability' is inappropriate where consecutive historic physical localities are involved." and "this is one location in a consecutive series" and " the whole doesn't work with pieces of the jigsaw missing." and "10 or so articles already, what next??" and "Frankly I am dismayed" As agljones has stated elsewhere, the TT course is unique; it merits facilitation, not interference and counter-production.

  I predicted these wholesale intended-deletions, so blame me. Accordingly I developed this Brandish article in December 2014 - much as I done with Ginger Hall (throwing it together at the kitchen table) which was eventually deleted by agljones [1] (it's gone but the redirect still works) after incorporation and, despite consensus to merge, Agljones did what he saw fit. He has been allowed to assume complete control of any IoM article, contrary to WP:OWN witnessed, self-confessed, at Talk:Windy Corner, Isle of Man#RfC: Proposed merge to Snaefell Mountain Course where he displays resentment of other editors' contributions and differing styles. This is contrary to Wikipedia fundamentals. My work is seldom reverted or deleted, but I guess I could list 20 such total deletions by @Agljones:

  Passively allowing a one-stripe editor like agljones to exercise dominance over such articles as Snaefell Mountain Course has already resulted in text-walling; incorporating more articles will just worsen readability. There is no restriction on server space - all the past versions are kept, albeit some are hidden - so why the obsession with what was intended to be deletion, of many articles, per se?--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have not have deleted any articles as I do not have administrator rights for article deletion. The article that he refers to has been deleted by the editor that has repeatedly nominated the articles listed above and also deleted four(?) other articles without referring to the article deletion process. I have previously stated that I accepted that perhaps some streamlining of the number of articles in respect to the Snaefell Mountain Course was inevitable and if you check the article deletion nominations you will find that I have not expressed a vote in all of the article nominations. I have accepted that some of the small articles may be deleted due to lack of notability (one article was a duplication). In respect to the article about about the Ginger Hall, I had found some secondary sources to address the criticism in regard to notability. I was in the process of trying to find another written non-partisan source in regard to the Ginger Hall which had been proving difficult to locate and the article was deleted unexpectedly without referring to the deletion process. Unsure how next to approach this situation, due to the ongoing problems with notability and Original Research (OR) I then removed a small paragraph from the main Snaefell Mountain Course in respect to the Ginger Hall which had been placed in the section reserved for parts of the course for competitors names as the information was inaccurate, lacked notability and missed completely the main points(it could have been mistaken for a commercial advert). I was considering reinstating the article for the Ginger Hall after the problems of notability had been resolved. I have had previously reinstated articles after sudden unexplained deletions and this includes the articles for Governors Bridge and Sarah's Cottage(this article was deleted as it conflicted with a teenage Canadian punk rock group now defunct).
    
    In regard to the criticisms of a 'one-stripe' editor and if you refer to my contribution logs and you will find that I have not deleted any articles as I do not have any article deletion rights. I do not resent differing styles or other contributions. The problem has been that I tend not to interfere with other editors contributions or differences in styles and where I have rewritten an article I have tried to incorporate the previous information. The references that I have made to style and other contributions is in regard to the main Isle of Man TT article. If you refer to the various talk pages a consensus was reached by other editors on how the best way to progress the historic Isle of Man TT. If you again check the contribution logs you will find that I have followed that consensus. I have also partly completed a re-write of the main Isle of Man TT article and it follows the style of articles such as the Tour de France which is a major change from the current article with different contributions from different editors including myself.
    
    I have checked my contribution logs and I can not find the twenty article deletions that you refer too. Again, I do not have any article deletion rights. I do not assume complete control of any IoM article and again if you refer to my contribution logs you will find that I have not made any contribution to the main Isle of Man article for a number of years and I am unsure when I last made a contribution (perhaps prior to 2009). There are a wide range of Isle of Man articles and I tend to concentrate on the Isle of Man TT and Manx Grand Prix results(as no other editor is interested in such a boring task). I also in the past have taken long Wiki-breaks of six months or more. I have not made any conscious decisions to adopt and Isle of Man article as an editor or exercise dominance on any IoM article. However, as I have mentioned previously I have intervened in the article in respect to the list of List of Snaefell Mountain Course fatal accidents. I have tried to maintain a low key style to this article and asked contributors to be more respectful and not make trivial comments(I have received one apology from another editor over this issue). There has been a number of technical problems with the article and also contributors making additions without any formal or official notification of a fatal accident regarding a competitor. If there is any criticism as an editor, it has been that perhaps I have not intervened in the problems with style or multi-contributions allowing articles to become untidy or unreadable. This is correct in regard to the article in respect to the Windy Corner and the Verandah. Nevertheless, Wikipedia does state that their are other procedures available to improve an article before moving to nominate an article for the deletion. Perhaps this procedure should have been followed rather than keep nominating articles for deletion. agljones (talk)11:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rocknrollmancer: Your argument to dismiss it having failed previously, would you now care to address the issue of notability? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The topic is notable per the WP:GNG because it is documented in detail in sources such as 100 Years of the Isle of Man TT and The World Sports Record Atlas. Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 12:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no issue of notability. There is no issue of original research (OR). The corner can be found listed on Sheet 95 of the Ordnance Survey Landranger Series of 1:50,000 scale map for the Isle of Man (primary sources are acceptable by Wikipedia). I do not control every "IoM article" and therefore I have made no attempt to improve this article. The article Snaefell Mountain Course already has two references to the corner and it is not a case of merging what is considered "non-trivial" information but expanding already existing information in a separate article. agljones (talk)21:50, 8 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.