Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Footpaths of Gibraltar

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. The keeps have it. Drmies (talk) 00:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Footpaths of Gibraltar

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a fork of Fortifications of Gibraltar, I see nothing in this article which does not belong either there or in the article Upper Rock Nature Reserve. In fact this seems to be an end run around a previous AFD. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for the following reasons:

First, this article is not a fork. See WP:CFORK: "a content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject." The subject of this article is not about the nature reserve itself. It is simply a spinout - see WP:SPINOUT - from Upper Rock Nature Reserve. There are already multiple spinouts from that article covering the plants and animals in the nature reserve. It's completely normal to treat subtopics of a high-level topic as spinouts.
Second, I wrote Fortifications of Gibraltar (a Good Article) and this content is definitely not viable for merging there. That article is a history of the fortifications in general, not a list of the individual fortifications or the non-fortification infrastructure. (Footpaths, needless to say, are not fortifications.) At over 7,000 words, it is already long enough for spin-out articles (see WP:SPINOUT).
Third, I have reused only a portion of the content - three paragraphs in total - from a previously deleted article. Many of those who commented in that AfD suggested that a merge would be viable. As I was already working on an article on another Gibraltar footpath, I have chosen to merge all of the footpaths together into a single article which puts all of the footpaths into an historical, natural history and geographical context with many more sources than the previously deleted article. This is not a recreation of that article, it is a wholly new article with a much wider scope that simply reuses a chunk of the former, narrower, article. Prioryman (talk) 12:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth, since I see notability has been challenged on the basis of Google searches - never a good idea - I will point out that I've used multiple hard-copy sources including an entire book - one of several - that cover this topic in detail. Prioryman (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, there are the "lie" claims again. WP:NPA. A DYK nomination or a user talk page discussion have no value in making this not a copyright violation. I see an article created by you with text written by someone else and with no indication whatsoever that the text isn't yours or that the other has given permission (to you). Fram (talk) 13:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that, as of about ten minutes ago, the history merge has been completed and thus attribution correctly provided (although I do hope Prioryman at least notes something in his edit summary next time). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prioryman, thank you for your response, however given that Upper Rock Nature Reserve is only 14,164 bytes it is not eligible for a fork to be created. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please look at WP:CFORK and WP:SPINOUT and learn the difference between the two? A spinout is not a fork. We create spinout articles to provide coverage of subtopics within larger topics. Forks are duplicate articles on the same topic - for instance if we had rival articles on Omaha, Nebraska and City of Omaha those would be forks. This is more akin to Trails in Omaha, a subtopic of Omaha, Nebraska. This article follows the same pattern - high-level article (Upper Rock Nature Reserve), subtopic (Footpaths of Gibraltar). Do note though that the footpaths are not wholly inside the nature reserve and there is scope for adding more material about footpaths outside the reserve, which is why I chose a title which would allow the wider scope. Prioryman (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, combining a list of stubs on non notable subjects into one larger "article" or container with a rather misleading title (the contents of the article are only one small subsection of the suggested topic) as an end-run around AfD, and as a copyright violation to boot (reusing the text of the deleted article without attribution of the original author), should not be allowed. There is a reason that the Google search "Footpaths of Gibraltar" -wikipedia returns no results, they are not a topic of considerable independent commentary at all. Most of the sources in the article are either non-independent or trivial, a few others are not about the footpaths at all. Fram (talk) 12:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that it is a copyvio is an outright lie, as you know perfectly well. The author of the three paragraphs I reused has no problems with it (I asked him and credited him in a DYK nomination) and I was already discussing with other editors how to combine the two articles' histories when you butted in. A history merge has been suggested and carried out by Crisco 1492 as the best option so this is a non-issue. As for Google sources, you're ignoring the much larger world of print sources. I have an entire book about these paths - one of several books which deals with these paths - on my desk but it doesn't come up on Google. Don't think that because you can't find sources I can't either. Prioryman (talk) 12:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was no lie, it was a copyright violation. Note that accusing editors of lying is covered in WP:NPA. Note also that "discussing with other editors how to combine" seems to consist of one other editor raising the issue with you, and you giving one short reply. So it seems that I wasn't the only one bothered by it. That you gave Gibmetal77 also a DYK credit (without any indication which parts of the "new" article were supposedly written by him) indicates that you may not have deliberately created a copyvio; this doesn't mean that it wasn't a copyvio of course. People sometimes simply make mistakes instead of having malicious intent, you know... And if you have books which deals with these paths, then why didn't you use these as sources instead of the much weaker ones included in the article? Any indication (roughly) how many footpaths (footpaths, not walking trails) in Gibraltar are included in that book? Fram (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A copyvio requires that the content is used without the original author's permission. That was never the case in this instance; Gibmetal77 was fully aware and happy with it. This was merely a technical issue of documenting the authorship of the content, which I wasn't sure how to resolve but has been sorted out by Crisco. As for the books, I've used them to add to what the most authoritative sources state. They cover all of the paths I've tackled in the article. I omitted a couple of paths that I knew about but couldn't document in print. Every path you see in the article is covered by multiple hard-copy sources. Prioryman (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Several of the sources in the article are primary in nature, but source searches suggest that the overall topic meets Wikipedia's standards of notability. Modified source searches yield results (e.g. [1], [2]). This article covers several of the footpaths of Gibraltar, whereas (as of this post) the Fortifications of Gibraltar article has neither the word "footpath" nor "path" within it whatsoever (hence, not an outright content fork). Per WP:5, part of Wikipedia's purpose is to function as a gazetteer. The AfD discussion linked in the nomination was regarding only one footpath, the Devil's Gap Footpath. This is an informative and encyclopedic topic and article, and it's new, created on July 26, 2013. Perhaps allow time for improvements to occur, instead of rushing to delete it so soon. Additionally, Fram's copyvio concerns above appear to be correctable via simple attribution where necessary. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just an update to note that a history merge has been performed by Crisco 1492 at his suggestion. Prioryman (talk) 13:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge to Upper Rock Nature Reserve, as explained below. "WP is not a directory" or a guide to footpaths. I agree that Gibraltar is a tremendously interesting place, which already seems to be well reported in other articles. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should have also said that the fact that the footpaths run through very notable areas does not make the paths themselves notable, any more than say "Sidewalks of Vatican City" would be a suitable WP article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:5P says, Wikipedia "combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." A gazetteer-style article is not a directory. We have hundreds if not thousands of gazetteer-style articles, which may or may not include commentary about the geographical places listed - e.g. List of districts of India, List of roads in the Isle of Man. There is nothing about the form of this article which is not replicated in the same or similar form in numerous other articles. As for notability, if the paths themselves were not notable they would not have received the significant coverage in reliable sources that is reflected in the article. I have no idea what you mean by your statement that Gibraltar is "well reported in other articles", which is completely irrelevant to this discussion, as the footpaths are not covered anywhere else. Prioryman (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone brought up the point that WP can be a Gazetteer. Very well, here is the intro from that article: "A gazetteer is a geographical dictionary or directory, an important reference for information about places and place names (see: toponymy), used in conjunction with a map or a full atlas.[1] It typically contains information concerning the geographical makeup of a country, region, or continent as well as the social statistics and physical features, such as mountains, waterways, or roads. Examples of information provided by gazetteers include the location of places, dimensions of physical features, population, GDP, literacy rate, etc. This information is generally divided into overhead topics with entries listed in alphabetical order." The gazetteer material in Gibraltar should already be in the article Gibraltar, the same as in any article on a place. A place without much notable history will be only a gazetteer entry. WP has many of those. None of this makes the footpaths of Gibraltar notable in themselves, although the fact that Gibraltar has footpaths could be mentioned in the main article. If sources say something that makes the paths themselves notable then by all means write an article on them. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article uses numerous sources attesting the notability of the paths. Every path covered in the article is covered by at least three hard-copy sources, including an entire book. We have already been through one AfD where it was argued that a single path was not notable by itself, but this article covers all of the paths as a single topic which is not only notable but covered in multiple reliable hard-copy and online sources. Prioryman (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To me a book entitled "Historic Walking Guides Gibraltar" sounds like it is about the experience of visiting Gibraltar, not specifically about the paths you would be walking on. There could also be "A Walking Guide to San Francisco" but that would not justify a WP article on "Sidewalks of San Francisco, California". I'm not trying to be disagreeable, that's just how I understand the policies. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is about the paths you would be walking on - it lists eight trails through the territory which incorporate the paths covered in the article. It's not comparable to "Sidewalks of San Francisco, California". Part of the confusion here is there are two things called Gibraltar in Gibraltar - the town itself (which does have sidewalks), and the state/territory, of which the town is only one fairly small part. None of the paths are in the town. The paths are all in the wider territory and the book I mentioned covers the whole of that territory. In other words, the article is more comparable to something like "Trails in California" (compare Category:Hiking trails in California) than "Sidewalks of San Francisco, California". Would you object to an article on Trails in California bringing together and linking out to each of the trails covered in the category? Many similar articles already exist, e.g. List of trails in New York, List of trails of Montana, List of trails in Grand Canyon National Park. If those are legitimate articles then so is this; it's no different in kind. Prioryman (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has a number of sources indicating, to me, that it is notable. Unlike some of the other lists Prioryman mentions above, it contains quite a bit of information on each of the trails, all of it referenced. We have articles on individual roads, railroad lines, rail stations, etc. often with less information than is given here. Finally it looks like this article won't fold neatly into another article so I think merging makes no sense. Tobyc75 (talk) 01:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:REDUNDANTFORK, "If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article" so deletion is inappropriate here. The fortifications of Gibraltar article is already 60K and so, per WP:SIZE, merger is inappropriate too. And as the article seems well written, sourced and informative, there doesn't seem to be any other significant problem. Warden (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not a content fork. Very nice and well-sourced work, kudos to the content creator. Carrite (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Kitfoxxe warned for blatant WP:CANVASSING for delete !votes on this AfD. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Keep - I am puzzled by this nomination, as the article is clearly a fine addition to the 'pedia. The above 'Keep' !votes outline that fact, and the few opposes are less than convincing so I suggest we close this asap as a waste of editor time. Jus da fax 21:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I don't feel that I'm wasting my time. The great thing about WP is that no one is obligated to spend time on something if you don't want to. Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Referencing looks OK (though not great), and this seems a viable topic. I was asked to comment here by Kitfoxxe, who suggested that the other editors were acting in bad faith: I see no evidence of that. Nick-D (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(I would rather see them explaining to us why the Footpaths of Gilbraltar are notable, rather than bringing up side issues like the nom's mention of content forks which really has nothing to do with the footpaths themselves. Also when they call each other by name and complement each other this looks a little funny to me. Since you asked.) Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see one "Kudos", and several instances where editors call each other by name in a decidedly non-collegial manner. Your ABF is groundless, methinks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just prefer an AfD to be about the notability of the article.Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the main focus is about the notability of the article and any other issues related to the keeping or deleting of said article. However, we are not robots. In any discussion there's bound to be some (somewhat) off topic threats that pop up. "Good job" or "Are you sure" is not a reason to suggest editors are acting in bad faith. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just skimmed through the discussion here and no, very little is about the notability of the footpaths. Most is on the side issue of content forks or on contrasting the notability of footpaths with sidewalks or mentioning articles on other actually notable hiking trails or on a past copyright violation. It's true that the poor wording of the nomination itself opened up the chance to discuss these rather than the real issue.Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are also right Crisco, and me wrong, in that most of the complements and sweet talk are directed towards the article not directly to its authors. Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should note more explicitly that "any other issues related to the keeping or deleting of said article" includes the fork and other issues, which are possible reasons for deletion (though not generally as common). A focus on the notability of these paths as individual items or as a group of footpaths, perhaps not, but issues pertaining to deletion... yes. Anyways, I'm not planning on !voting in this AFD, just watching it to see how it turns out (and defusing the possible copyvio issues brought up by Fram earlier) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kitfoxxe, it's apparent that you've been rather blatantly canvassing: not only Nick-D but six other editors. This is disruptive and inappropriate conduct in an AfD. It's frankly sad that some people are so desperate to block article creation in this topic area. Prioryman (talk) 08:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't especially care about the subject area. I was reacting, and I am sorry I over reacted, to the dishonesty and bullying that I saw going on here. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Upper Rock Nature Reserve. This is decently sourced, but outside of travel guides the sources are nearly all discussing specific footpaths, rather than them as a group and even then the sourcing is a bit sparse. As things stand the Upper Rock Nature Reserve article is shorter than this article and all these footpaths are contained entirely within it best I can tell. Seems integrating the material here into that article would be the better approach.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support this merge. The trails are a feature of the reserve, or so it seems. A lot of this article duplicates information already in the reserve article. With a merge none of the unique information here would be lost and interested readers can find out about the footpaths. Also people interested in the reserve will find out about the footpaths, which are important for visitors, even if not "notable" in general.Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As already stated above, the footpaths are a subtopic of the nature reserve. There is a good deal more that could be said about the reserve but per WP:REDUNDANTFORK a merger would not be appropriate. Prioryman (talk) 08:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except we create spinout articles when the subject is notable in its own right and so extensively covered that it is better to handle it in an independent article. There is no indication that "footpaths of Gibraltar" are notable as a group, or individually, and there is not really enough unique information about the footpaths to justify an independent article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tourist information, so transwiki to Wikivoyage - Nabla (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We already have hundreds of articles on trails in the United States alone (see Category:Hiking trails in the United States) and coverage of trails in dozens of countries (see Category:Hiking trails by country). This is no different from any of those, and I don't see you suggesting that we should transwiki hundreds of other articles of the same type. Prioryman (talk) 09:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion is about this article, not about any other, so transwiki it, is my opinion because it is travelling information. Comparing with other article is important for sure, so I'd say transwiki all of those others, IF they are similar to this one, but they are not under discussion here - Nabla (talk) 09:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - If our article is to be believed, then Wikivoyage's operating principle is "can you sleep there?" and so footpaths wouldn't qualify. Wikipedia's great strength is that it covers just about everything and so we don't have such absurd limits. Warden (talk) 10:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Also from Wikivoyage: "Attractions such as hotels, restaurants, bars, stores, nightclubs, tour operators, museums, statues or other works of art, city parks, town squares or streets, festivals or events, transport systems or stations, bodies of water, and uninhabited islands are listed in the article for the place within which they are located." It sounds like footpaths will fit in fine. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is an article on a notable hiking trail: Appalachian Trail. I never expect to hike on this trail yet the article is interesting to read. I might very well visit Gibraltar someday. At that time I will want some information on its footpaths, but really have no interest in reading about them before then. On the other hand the article on the Upper Rock Nature Reserve is worth reading.Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm aware that WP policy says that "interesting" and "uninteresting" are not grounds to keep or delete an article. However I find it helps to distinguish the encyclopedic (which a person sitting in a library anywhere in the world might want to read) from the "WP is not a directory, tourist guide, how-to" stuff. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No policy-based reason for deletion, so this falls at the first hurdle. Also the increasingly strident deletion arguments, which followed an apology for some rather obvious pro-deletion canvassing, have focused on the idea that footpaths and hiking trails are notable if they are in the USA or near there, but not if they are in disputed or obscure territories like Gibraltar. Needless to say, this is nonsense. AfD does not exist to reinforce or assist these sorts of obscure regional biases. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"...deletion arguments... have focused on the idea that footpaths and hiking trails are notable if they are in the USA or near there, but not if they are in disputed or obscure territories like Gibraltar." I don't see anyone making this argument. Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's good, because it is an argument that is not based in policy, and therefore has no weight. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you there. I also made several comments saying that Gibraltar is an interesting place that I might like to visit someday. So I hope you don't think I have an "obscure regional bias." :-) -Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2013 (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.