Flat Bastion Road – No consensus to overturn, relist at AfD. There's no consensus here to overturn the original close, but given the serious concerns raised about the previous AfD discussion, I'm going to relist this on closer's discretion. – T. Canens (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This will seem at first glance to be a rather ridiculous request, but please bear with me. The votecount at the AfD was quite clear, that as such is not the problem. The issue is that the article that people !voted on was a travesty, and that very serious defects with it were seemingly deliberately ignored by the different editors who expanded the page and voted to keep it in the AfD. You can compare the article as voted on, and how it should have looked like with all duplicate, unreliable, irrelevant, or plainly incorrect information removed here.
The article at AfD was expanded to have 32 sources, covering a wide range of issues and historical information. When you would remove the sources that were misinterpreted or not about the subject at all, you are left with only 13 of the 32 sources though, and even among those, most are passing mentions only.
People wanting to keep the article mainly stated that it was a "major road" with an article with "verifiable geographical information" that "presents interesting historical facts" and that is "discussing the history of a road which is not routine". Apart from the fact that it presents some verifiable geographical information (which does of course nothing towards notability), this is all correct when you take the article at face value (or help to make it look like all this is true), but nonsense when you only retain the correct and verifiable information. Despite this being pointed out during the AfD, both in the AfD and at the talk page of the article, no one defending the article made any effort to either clean up the article or to discuss the issues, pointing out where those objections were wrong.
On the other hand, a number of uninvolved editors agreed with my assessment, and even the creator of the article, who started the AfD by claiming that it is "one of the major roads of Gibraltar", now agrees that "Fram, I believe you do have a valid point about how notable the road actually is (I had confused it with Europa Road when I started it) and a point that some of the sources don't discuss the road in detail and are only indirectly connected,"[1].
So while by pure votecount or superficial reading this may seem a very clearcut AfD, in reality it is an extremely flawed one: to let this one stand would mean that people can "save" articles by expanding it with serious-looking but actually unrelated sources (in this case e.g. "confusing" Flat Bastion Road with Flat Bastion, giving the road an additional 5 centuries of history and an important role in the military history of Gibraltar, both of which are not supported by the sources at all and completely unverifiable). An AfD should be based on a) a correct article and b) correct other sources, not on fabrications, and a closing admin should take this into account and refuse to reward the people who made such a travesty. The AfD should be closed as being invalid, the article rewritten to a verifiable, correct representation of the road, and a new AfD started on that basis only.Fram (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Flat Bastion Road is not as notable as Europa Road no, but I'm content to have an article on it. But if there is false information in the article it should be removed by somebody.♦ Dr. Blofeld10:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AfD comments by me were not based on the article content, but on the available sources to write the article. If there is factually incorrect information, it should be removed from the article, but that does not void the AfD because comments were based on notability of the road based on available sources or likely to be available sources, not what is in the article. What the original creator of the article says is irrelevant because they do not own the article. As I understand article deletion policy, their voices carry no special weight over that of other contributors. --LauraHale (talk) 11:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yet you stated in the AfD "Hundreds of years of history." I asked you then, and do so again now: on what sources did you base that statement? Fram (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, you were the one adding the most blatantly incorrect information ([2]). You e.g. state that " In 1704, the road was known as Santa Cruz y plataforma de Santiago.", while the source says "Santa Cruz y plataforma de Santiago, despues conocida como Flat Bastion", i.e. "Afterwards known as Flat Bastion". So not "as Flat Bastion Road", like your edit claimed. This could have been a simple error, if not for the fact that every single statement in that section has the exact same error. Fram (talk) 12:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Laura, that's not what I'm saying. Fram implies here and on Mark Arsten's tlak page that the article contains false, misleading information. I am not claiming anything and could not care enough about the article to even consider WP:OWN. From what I saw you and Anne did a great job expanding it, but Fram says you didn't and there is superfluous information which is not about the road but passed off as such. I don't agree that the AFD was invalid or should be restarted, but if there is any factual inaccuracy it really does need fixing. Perhaps Fram you could identify the sources and sections which you say are particularly problematic and somebody can look into this further? ♦ Dr. Blofeld11:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not find it hard to identify problematic phrases and sections in that article, Dr Blofeld. I do think Fram has a point here. I don't have any criticism for Mark Arsten, who correctly assessed the debate before him, and I feel that the technical outcome of this DRV should be "endorse". But a close look at the article and at the debate does strongly support what Fram's saying.
Article rescue is, and should be, an important part of the Wikipedia process. But it's not "rescue" to write: In 1828, a sewer ran parallel to the road; however, during a yellow fever outbreak the sewer did not emit any excessive odours that seemed out of the normal. That sentence is evidence of extremely poor editorial judgment on the part of the article's contributors and therefore suggests a need for critically-minded editors to go over it with a fine tooth comb. I also (cynically) wonder whether the reason for that sentence might be no more than a wish to add an academic source to the references. It's certainly not "rescue" in the sense that I understand it.
I feel that our discussion processes have failed us in this case and I feel that the debate was defective. I suggest that Fram be permitted to fix the article as he suggests in the nomination, after which we should vacate the closure (without fault on the closer's part) and begin a fresh XfD.—S MarshallT/C 11:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I already did, repeatedly. The most blatant is the whole first paragraph of the history section, from "Constructed in the thirteenth century" until "connected to the gate by a curtain", where the sources only discuss the bastion, not the road, but the article is written as if the sources are about the road (with sentences like "the road was known as ..."). Fram (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There was no consensus to delete, not even close. The complaints above are just a matter of ordinary editing about details of the article. AFD is not a GA review and we should not encourage such vexatious nitpicking as a way of gaming the deletion process. There's clearly plenty of material out there about the road and the associated fortifications.. If Fram wants to bicker further about this then they can and are doing this on the article talk page. That is the proper venue for such content disputes while bringing it to DRV just seems to be forum shopping. Warden (talk) 12:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Details"? "Nitpicking"? The main claim to fame for the road is a complete fabrication, with sources which aren't about the road at all. Then again, you claimed at the AfD that "the road was originally constructed to service the bastion", but the source you upon request provided doesn't mention the road at all. And you claimed in that same AfD that "Argumentation about the fine details of the article and its sources are therefore inappropriate." It seems that you have a profound misunderstanding of what AfD is about, and an equally profound misunderstating of what "sourcing" means. Fram (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You made uncivil complaints of that sort during the discussion, e.g. "Bullshit. Sorry to be so blunt, but this is utter bullshit.". Your position about the sources was thus clear to the closer and he apparently did not accept it. It is natural that you might continue to disagree but that is not sufficient reason to challenge the close. DRV is not AFD part 2. Warden (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When you can't defend your content, attack the editors. Nice tactic, perhaps executed a bit too blatant here though. Why did you make false claims at the AfD? Why did you present a source as evidence, when that source doesn't contain the fact it is supposed to support at all? Fram (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It really isn't a content dispute, you know. Fram's nomination is clear: he says the deletion process has not been correctly followed and he explains why. This is exactly the right place for him to make his case. I also don't see why it's "ridiculous" to make the claims Fram has made.—S MarshallT/C 13:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The stuff that Fram is nitpicking about was quite peripheral to my position. My !keep vote was primarily based upon the fact that Wikipedia has the function of a gazeteer and so a historic road name like this should be retained as a blue link. The closer indicated that further discussion about merger might be continued outside the AFD. The main point of AFD is to settle the issue of deletion and that has clearly been done. But you're right that this is isn't really a content dispute. What it is, of course, is an attempt to make more drama and trouble for the Gibraltarpedia project. Tsk. Warden (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please, Warden, that's really not fair at all. Fram isn't "nitpicking"—he has a serious and well-founded case. It's true that per the five pillars Wikipedia is a gazeteer, and I've always understood this to mean that for articles that are geographical in scope, a map counts as a reliable source for notability purposes. If the article had been kept at AfD on these grounds, then I would have no issue with it at all. (I'm sure you know that. I don't always agree with Fram, and I'm not on the deletionist end of the spectrum.)
But while I accept that, the debate didn't focus on the general issue of notability as it applies to geographical locations. It focused on the sources for this particular article, and with all due respect for your own contribution to the debate, the argument to keep really did rely heavily on the sources that are alleged to cover this particular street. And it's really true that this argument doesn't stand up to close inspection.
My position is now that Fram is being both disruptive and uncivil here. In these discussions, they are engaging in badgering and bludgeoning. When other editors do not agree with them, they curse and accuse them of dishonesty. In the discussion on the closer's talk page, there was some willingness to review the article and engage in merge discussion. Instead of following up that reasonable proposal, we have this vexatious and bureaucratic DRV instead. How is this not troublesome? Warden (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This is an improper DRV request. As the notes under #Purpose above say, DRV should not be used "because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment." Fram is not arguing that the closer got it wrong, he is arguing that the !voters got it wrong. He put forward his case in AfD, it was rejected, end of story. Prioryman (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I stated in my DRV request: "a closing admin should take this into account and refuse to reward the people who made such a travesty." So contrary to what you state, I am arguing that the closer got it wrong. Fram (talk) 06:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're now arguing that the closer should have determined that the voters got it wrong, but that's still at its root an argument that rests on your disagreement with the consensus of the discussion - as you said, "the votecount at the AfD was quite clear". Yes, it was and the closer respected that clear consensus rather than imposing his own personal views, which is what you seem to arguing should have happened. Prioryman (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The closer should have noted that the discussion was based on a fundamentally incorrect article and an incorrect use of sources. If opinions are based on an incorrect or fraudulent use of sources, then these opinions are inherently invalid. Closer's have to weigh the validity of the opinions and accord them weight accordingly. Note that votecount isn't the same as consensus by the way. See WP:CONSENSUS: "This means that decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms." In this case, no effort was made to incorporate legitimate concerns, and Wikipedia's norms were not respected. This means that the basics of consensus building were not followed in this AfD, and that while there was a clear votecount in one direction, there was no valid consensus under Wikipedia rules. Fram (talk) 08:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect in your opinion. You put forward your case in the AfD and it was rejected by a large majority. That suggests that most of those who participated disagreed with your view that there was "incorrect or fraudulent use of sources". Just because you believe something to be the case doesn't make it so. Prioryman (talk) 09:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's the part that makes me worried. Not noticing that sources are used incorrectly is one thing, but being confronted with the evidence and still refusing to see it takes it to another level. You never struck me as incompetent, but the other option is worse. Fram (talk) 10:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of the "majority"...were any participants of the Gibralter projects canvassed to come vote in the AfD discussion? Cla68 (talk) 13:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, Fram, what I'm worried about (maybe "worried" is too strong a word; vexed is perhaps closer to the mark) is what I see as a kind of ideological blindness, bordering on arrogance, in your position. Your argument seems to be that if your fellow editors rejected your case in the AfD, it couldn't possibly be because you got it wrong or your arguments weren't persuasive enough but because they got it wrong for various reasons. Well, I've seen you nominate various Gibraltar-related articles, the Gibraltarpedia template and even the Gibraltarpedia project page for deletion, but so far every single one of your deletion requests has been or is being shot down in flames with large majorities against you. I think a bit more humility on your part and a reconsideration of your views would be in order at this point, since the large majority of editors who have commented on your various XfDs have rejected your arguments. In other words, I think it's time for you to butt out from anything Gibraltar-related and do something more productive instead. Prioryman (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have not nominated the template, so you are wrong there for a start. The "various" articles were a grand total of 2 articles, one of them here at DRV. So that leaves you with so far one nomination that didn't result in a keep because the subject was somewhat notable after all. And one nomination that resulted in a temporary keep because of the underhanded tactics of people like you, who are not above inserting or defending completely inaccurate information if it serves their purpose or project. I think it is time for you to seriously reconsider your approach or to butt out of Wikipedia completely, since such dishonesty from established editors is one of the worst things that can happen here. If you are not interested in getting it right, if you prefer having blatantly false information in articles if that means that you can keep them on Wikipedia, then you should be voluntarily retiring or be blocked to force your retirement. It is high time that you step out of your project-protector role for a second and take a truly neutral and objective look at the article and the concerns raised. Fram (talk) 07:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redo from start. Fram's request is unusual, but reasonable under the circumstances. While it is important that DRV maintain its reluctance to second guess outcomes supported by consensus, as Fram and SMarshall have shown there was a conflating of sources that resulted in erroneous information that may have skewed the outcome; a fresh discussion is appropriate. XymmaxSo let it be writtenSo let it be done19:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redo: Per Fram and Xymmax. Also, the "majority" argument is problematic, because the number of votes was skewed by the 16 notifications Prioryman made to Gibraltar/Gibraltarpedia participants to come vote in the AfD. Cla68 (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cla68 is wrong, as usual. I note that he provides no evidence that the vote was "skewed" in any way. Of the 16 Gibraltarpedia contributors that I notified, only 2 contributed to the AfD discussion. There were 14 "keep" votes and only 3 "delete" votes, so even removing these 2 contributors would not have affected the majority in any way. It would still have been 12 to 3, a 4:1 margin, which is hardly close. The vast majority of those voting to keep the article were not in fact Gibraltarpedia project members, so it's unequivocally false to insinuate that the retention of this article was somehow a snow job. Prioryman (talk) 23:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I personally feel that the article should be deleted. Aside from being sourced, there's nothing that sets this street apart from 3,456,923 other streets in the world that do not have articles about them. However, I feel the consensus was quite clear to keep the article. What this appears to be now is a content dispute to make up for the article NOT being deleted. This is not the proper venue for that. DRV exists to determine if the the close was made properly, and in this case it clearly was. Trusilver22:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This witch hunt needs to stop. For Fram to use words like "underhanded" and "dishonesty" to describe Prioryman is just outrageous. I am one of the editors who worked on Flat Bastion Road. Not only did I not fabricate anything, I was very careful to source everything. In addition, in instances where another editor confused the road with Flat Bastion or Prince Edward's Road, I tried to correct it. However, I did try to avoid deleting other people's work, simply because I'm a relatively new editor. I believe that this is a notable road, and should have an article in Wikipedia. I am very familiar with the subject, because working on the road article spurred me to produce Flat Bastion a few days ago. If you would like me to work further on the article and delete a few sentences that don't relate specifically to the road, I would be happy to do it. However, to start the process over again is ridiculous. Let's not pretend that this whole process is not directly a result of the anger over GibraltarpediA. This has become way too personal. Wikipedians should be collaborating, not attacking. Anne (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it "outrageous"? He hasn't been honest (and neither have Colonel Warden, Laura Hale, GFHandel, ...). Wikipedians should stick to facts, not deliberately insert and keep false information in articles in the hope that this will help the chances of survival for their article. For collaboration, some mutual trust is needed. With people like Dr. Blofeld, I know that they don't deliberately insert false information in articles. He makes mistakes, I make mistakes, that's not an issue and doesn't prevent us from working together. You seem to be trying to make correct articles as well, and I can understand your reluctance in correcting or removing information inserted by someone who has been longer here than you and whom you assume good faith about. However, in this case, for some people that good faith has been incorrect, and they have by, as I said, underhanded tactics and plain dishonesty manipulated you and others and made a mockery of the AfD. Such antics make them untrustworthy and very problematic editors, and the reluctance of other supporters of this article and/or GibraltarpediA does taint the reputation of that project as well. It does give the impression that the project and the keeping of this article on a rather random road is more important than respecting the basic policies of Wikipedia. It certainly has resulted in me definitely losing the trust in and respect for the editors I named above (not you or Dr. Blofeld, I mean the others). They probably don't really care about that, but from the point of view that "Wikipedians should be collaborating" it is a very bad result. Fram (talk) 09:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse While I commented in the discussion that I felt the article should be deleted per our policies, the consensus of the discussion was clearly to keep. While administrators have the opportunity of ignoring consensus in favor of policy, especially in cases of what Wikipedia is not, a closure of delete would have been clearly controversial in this case. Editors in the discussion also pointed out Wikipedia's role as a gazetteer as an policy based argument. I would have no problem with the article being renominated for AfD (although I would prefer it to be left alone). RyanVesey23:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I too think this is now resembling a witch-hunt (or at the very least an unnecessary fixation). I would love my street to be in Wikipedia, however (unlike this article) there are simply not dozens of references to it (so we can dispense with straw-man arguments based on "3,456,923 other streets"). My !vote here is that this action be closed and that the article be left alone (as the failed AfD supported) for six months so that the editors who are interested in building an encyclopaedia can continue the great work they have started. For those trotting out the "rule" book, do I really need to labour the point by reproducing more article text from a Pokemon character-of-the-day article? I'll do it... GFHandel♬02:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"however (unlike this article) there are simply not dozens of references to it" except for the fact that there aren't dozens of references to it. You are still acting as if the sources in the article are for the street, which is not true for most of them. Repeating barefaced lies and keeping clearly incorrect information in articles for the sake of keeping the article is very poor behaviour. The article, AfD and DRV are all symptoms, the major problem is some of the editors involved, you included. Fram (talk) 09:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close was entirely valid based on the arguments given and proposer for deletion simply does not agree with the result. No new valid arguents for deletion have been presented here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IF the "arguments given" are completely incorrect, then the close that is based on them is incorrect as well. I came here not simply because I disagree with the result, but because I disagree with the way that result was achieved, namely by, as John Vandenberg states below, "the AFD participants were given a false impression of the roads notability". Letting such AfDs stand unchallenged just indicates to everyone involved that you don't need to be editing according to our basic policies like verifiability, you just have to make up some plausible looking and impressively but incorrectly referenced notable elements. Fram (talk) 07:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I agree with Fram that there appears to be very significant problems with this article as it currently stands, especially with the article text that was added during the AFD (I have marked two facts as {{failed verification}} and large chunks of the text will become moved to separate articles because the text is good but completely irrelevant to the road itself), and that the AFD participants were given a false impression of the roads notability. However the AFD is what it is, and the closure was an appropriate summation of the opinions of those who attended the AFD discussion. Another AFD right now would be another useless wiki-political fight with lots of noise. I believe the article problems should be addressed editing using the consensus model, and the article can be renominated for AFD if it turns out to be not notable after the cruft is removed, and I am pretty sure that no AFD would result in a delete; there are plenty of merge candidates and lots of motivated pro-GibraltarpediA people who can undertake the merge rather than allow deletion to happen. John Vandenberg(chat)04:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Disclosure: I did vote in the AFD for keep. However, there is no consensus to delete, which always defaults to keep, and everything seems proper. Canvassing is bad, yes, but even so that didn't affect the outcome. --Rschen775405:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So far, we have 8 "endorses" and 4 "vacate and redo" opinions. Seems pretty clear cut, but of the 8 "endorses", 6 were by people who commented in the original AfD as well, so who just basically want to keep their desired result. Of the fresh, independent voices (which is what the decision in a review should be based upon), we suddenly get a quite different picture: 2 "endorse" versus 4 "vacate and redo". Fram (talk) 07:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of having a review if you let the same people decide the outcome? Of course your comments and insights are welcome (just like mine), but it's hardly useful to base an outcome on this. If the behaviour of some people in the original AfD (and at the article under scrutiny) is one of the reasons for the AfD, then it seems only logical to note the discrepancy between the opinions of the people in that original AfD, and the opinions of fresh voices looking at it from a more detached point of view. Fram (talk) 07:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I voted keep/merge; I'm not attached to the article at all, though. But speaking from the perspective of an administrator, Mark's close is proper; you can't just throw out the majority opinion, no matter how much you disagree or think it's wrong. The onus is on the nominator to prove a consensus to delete; no consensus defaults to keep. We work by consensus here. The reasoning for this DRV reminds me of WP:PRAM; perhaps it's time to drop the stick. --Rschen775408:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the fact that we don't work by votecount, and that the majority doesn't count if the majority doesn't follow policies. Perhaps instead of attacking the nominator, it is time for people to start looking at the arguments given for this DRV, arguments which seem to be at least somewhat convincing to most uninvolved editors in this DRV, but which are totally ignored by those previously involved. Majority doesn't trump policy, and a persistent refusal to address policy issues and to face up to the fact that the people voting keep have either been manipulated by unscrupulous editors, or were part of those unscrupulous editors, is a quite worrying tendency. Your claim in your "endorse" that "everything seems proper" is contradicted by the facts. I can understand that people don't believe me, although that shows a lack of WP:AGF; but when diverse uninvolved people like the commenters in this DRV nearly all seem to agree, with comments like "a close look at the article and at the debate does strongly support what Fram's saying.", "I agree with Fram that there appears to be very significant problems with this article as it currently stands, especially with the article text that was added during the AFD", and "there was a conflating of sources that resulted in erroneous information that may have skewed the outcome", then perhaps it is time to reconsider your position and to really look whether everything really was proper. Fram (talk) 08:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"What's the point of having a review if you let the same people decide the outcome?"—What? It now seems that some Wikipedians are more "equal" than others (and I notice you haven't excluded yourself from making 14 comments here). And, there's always the point-of-view of: what's the point of having an (unsuccessful) RfD if the same people are immediately entitled to ask for a review? Please let go of this obsession, accept the result of the RfD, and let the people who wish to build an encyclopaedia get along with their work. (And, please feel free to join us.) GFHandel♬08:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have nowhere said that people involved in the AfD aren't allowed or even encouraged to make comments here. But I do believe it is rather telling that there is such a discrepancy between the views of those previously involved, and the views of those who came to the DRV without prejudice (from either side). The rest of your comments is rather ridiculous, no one stops you from building an encyclopedia, but I'll continue doing just that instead of "joining you" in building your fancypedia, where scoring results is more important than correct, verifiable information. Fram (talk) 09:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With "fancypedia" you just lost any dignity you might have claimed to have had (and BTW, everything in the article was "verified information"). I'll now unwatch this and all associated pages, and let you get on with your policing activities. Since this travesty obviously comes down to "notability", I'll leave you with the above-promised quote from a randomly-selected Pokémon character article—so that you can ponder the inequities of Wikipedia's implementation of "notability" (today it is the unsourced Delia Ketchum):
She is Ash's mother. Delia is very caring of her son, always reminding him to do his best. She is very talented, having won a beauty pageant and cooked a dish so popular that elite chefs at the Indigo Plateau have asked for its recipe. It is not known who is the father of Ash, but it isn't clear that Ash's parents have separated, although she has contacted him at least once since Ash left. She has a Mr. Mime housekeeper who helps her with chores and is also rather adept in battle. In the Japanese version, the name of Satoshi's mother was, for a long time, unrevealed (with her referring to herself as Satoshi no haha or referred as Mama-san, although the role was credited as Hanako). The name Hanako (and its English counterpart, Delia) was revealed during the second Pocket Monsters movie. She also is constantly reminding Ash to change his underwear.
Wow! You know what? I'm not willing to deny the Pokémon fans their information—in the same way that I'm not willing to deny the readers (even if that's just a handful) who want to know more about this part of Gibraltar. Bye. GFHandel♬10:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Everything in the article was verified information"? Then why the "failed verification" by John Vandenberg? Are you looking at the same article? Have you even tried to verify the things that were questioned? Or are you just continuing to make things up to defend the article no matter what? Can you e.g. present the verification for "The road was built as part of a fortification system at the time by the Spanish for the defence of the city." and the next sentence? There is a source, but that doesn't verify what is stated in the article. Instead of quoting other articles (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), perhaps you can for a start provide the actual verification for these sentences, not just the general source but the page and relevant sentences? Fram (talk) 10:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone mind if I move this meta-discussion to the talk page? Trust the DRV closer—most people who regularly close at DRV will be well aware of these issues and quite competent to take them into account.—S MarshallT/C 11:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do mind a bit. The AfD closer should have been aware of the issues if he had read the AfD, the article, and the article talk, but totally ignored them. I hope that the DRV closer will be more thorough, but my confidence in my fellow editors has gone a bit downhill in this saga (not that all or even most editors here are not blameless, but there have been too many well-established editors who have acted very dubiously here). I'll not make a fuss over it if you move it anyway, but I would appreciate that, if you do it, you'ld note this here somehow (a short "comment" or so would do nicely). Fram (talk) 11:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And so these men of Hindustan Disputed loud and long, Each in his own opinion Exceeding stiff and strong, Though each was partly in the right And all were in the wrong. Yes, I mind. This section contains the useful link WP:PRAM which I'd not come across before. This seems a good pithy summary of what we have here and so should be retained. Splitting the discussion across multiple pages does not seem productive. It would be better to close the discussion as the motion does not seem to have consensus support and so we're done. There's no shortage of other pages where editors can inveigh about the wickedness of writing articles about the geography of Gibraltar.
Another point, while I remember. Fram's difficulty here seems to be understanding why editors such as myself take the position that we do. It is suggested this must be due to dishonesty or incompetence but it seems to me more likely that this is a difference of perception. The fable of the blind men and an elephant may help.
"A difference of perception"? What I see as "using sources which don't support the facts they are supposed to source at all", you see as "using sources which give a fake appearance of reliability and help increase notability"? Or what? You have on 26 September presented a source in the AfD which you claimed verified a point: I then added the link to the source you probably meant, but which didn't verify that fact at all. I asked you then and there which source did verify your claim. I again asked this in this DRV, on 2 October. You have never provided a source that verified your claim, but neither have you retracted your claim.
I understand perfectly allright why editors such as yourself take the position that you do. I fail to understand though how you and a few others thought to get away with such dishonesty (I think we can rule out incompetence, since even after having the problems pointed out repeatedly, no change, no correction, no additional questions for clarification, ... have followed). The article may be kept, or merged, or deleted, but your reputation has been tainted for a very long time. Fram (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hyperbole much? For me, the facts are more than sufficient to make my case. Since you are one of those who felt that the facts needed a bit of enhancement, embellishment, or lucky misreading instead, I suppose your comment was more directed towards yourself? Do you have, for the first time, anything substantial to add, any actual reply to the concerns raised, or will you simply continue with your empty rhetoric? (As for Godwin's Law, I already needed to invoke it in the GibraltarpediA MfD, where you participated as well; the Hitler comparison came from the "keep" side you preferred, not the opposite side; raising it here prematurely is just misdirected FUD). Fram (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redo - Notability of the subject has not been established, and the keep !votes in the AfD failed to address these concerns in any capacity. If Wikipedia was a popularity contest then the AfD would accurately be a keep consensus, but consensus is determined as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, not just on how many people want to keep the article. The notability concerns were not addressed, and it seems that many of the editors arguing to keep the article were fooled by the abundance of sources in the article; while there are a good number of sources in the article, none of them show any notability, and it seems that this was overlooked by mistake. - SudoGhost21:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Information As a result of the discussion on the talk page of the article, I started an RfC on the use of the notability tag after a concluded AfD at Template talk:Notability#RfC. Hopefully through posting here, all relevant parties are informed. RyanVesey23:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is well known that Wikipedia has articles on streets, so the AfD-nomination argument that the topic fails WP:N because it is like other roads, including roads with articles on Wikipedia, falls on its own evidence. Unscintillating (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to Keep without discussion of merger The DRV nomination states, "The issue is that the article that people !voted on was a travesty, and that very serious defects with it were seemingly deliberately ignored by the different editors who expanded the page and voted to keep it in the AfD." (1) We have no policy or guideline to define the objective criteria that make an article a "travesty". (2) Likewise, the concept of "very serious defects" is stated without criteria. (3) Even if (2) were provided, such is not "ignored" by "expand[ing] the page". (4) WP:N is not a content policy, and wp:notability is not defined by article content. (5) Had any content problems existed at the time of the AfD nomination, they are not mentioned in the AfD nomination. In fact, no policies were mentioned in the AfD nomination.
Only three out of eighteen !votes mention merge. While a strong consensus for keep from an AfD does not preclude someone from starting a merge discussion or boldly merging an article, it was not the role of the closing administrator here to draw attention to the possibility of merger. Unscintillating (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your reply seems to have little or nothing to do with the actual DRV nomination. At the time of the AfD nomination, the only reason for deletion was notability, because the article was on a subject that is indistinguishable from the majority of other non-notable streets (and not comparable with those streets that are notable and do have an article on Wikipedia). But the AfD discussion very soon had nothing to do with that article and nomination, because the article was turned into a travesty: the very serious defects have been stated over and over again, it amazes me that you failed to miss them. The history section of the article was based on sources that have been (presumable deliberately) misread, taking claims which are about the Flat Bastion and applying them to the Flat Bastion Road. If the source stated that the Flat Bastion was built in year X, for purpose Y, and was called Z, then the article stated that Flat Bastion Road was built in year X, for purpose Y, and was called Z. These verys serious and obvious defects were coupled with a number of sources that don't mention the road at all (starting with two sources to establish the political position of Gibraltar), and a number that mention it only in extreme passing.
But it was on this version of the article that most people based their opinions, at the AfD and even here in the DRV, e.g. by GFHandel claiming that the "dozens of references to it" establish notability. This DRV is for the deliberate (and successful) attempt by some editors to fool others into supporting the "keep" opinion by puffing up the article with lies and irrelevant extra information. This DRV is not made to decide whether the subject is actually notable or not, and it is totally irrelevant to this discussion whether the AfD nomination included any policies or not, so I don't see the reason why you bring this up.
Note how the article now looks strangely like the version I proposed during the AfD, and not like the article how it was during most of the Afd and the DRV; perhaps there was something in my remarks after all? Fram (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a new one. At the time it was nominated for deletion, other related articles such as Flat Bastion did not exist. As the Gibraltarpedia project progresses, it is natural that there will be a ferment of activity in which the content is reworked and restructured. Deletion discussions are not helpful in this. See WP:INSPECTOR. Warden (talk) 12:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so the reason that all kinds of claims about the road are now no longer in the article is because other articles are created since? So "facts" like "Constructed in the thirteenth century, the road was built as part of a fortification system[...]" or "In 1704, the road was known as Santa Cruz y plataforma de Santiago" are now no longer in the article on the road but somewhere else, not because they were totally untrue, but because these facts about the history of the road are obviously better suited for other articles? See WP:BULLSHIT and WP:LIE. Fram (talk) 08:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fram this DRV is not the venue to decide on notability. All the DRV can decide was whether the close was reasonable based on the previous AFD. Really the place to argue for non notability is another AFD which could be initiated without this page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
? I know that this is not the venue for that, I said as much repeatedly. The purpose of this DRV is not to decide whether the road is notable or not, but whether the previous AfD was fair process or not. But initiating another AfD is not possible anytime soon as long as the previous AfD stands. So your comments are not really relevant and not correct. I fail to see what your response had to do with my comment, which was about the continued lies and fabrications by Colonel Warden and others, despite the fact that they have been exposed by me, confirmed by others, and finally removed from the article. I was not discussing notability, I was discussing verifiability, accuracy, and basic WP:HONESTY which is expected from every editor but ignored by a few well-established ones here to further their agenda. Fram (talk) 09:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
