Windy Corner – No consensus closure endorsed. Future AfD discussions and/or merge discussions seem warranted, however, given the general tone of the discussion. – IronGargoyle (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Windy Corner (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Bad close. Community consensus is clearly against keeping this article on a non-notable subject. See also discussion at User talk:Michig#Windy Corner. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endorse as closer. The point here is that there wasn't clear consensus for any particular action. While there may have been a consensus against keeping this as a standalone article, that doesn't equate to consensus to delete. --Michig (talk) 10:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] Overturn, as per my comment here. Closer has, in my opinion, misinterpreted policy and has also failed to weigh up the votes correctly. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] Which policy would that be? --Michig (talk) 10:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Well within admin discretion. A call of rough consensus to delete I would consider dangerously close to a supervote. Participants were not convincing each other. I recommend the advice at Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] I'd like to know more of what Spartaz is thinking. "Policy" is very uncertain with regard to obscure but real things versus WP:NOTPAPER. I read very little coherent discussion of policy, and so disagree that the closer is invited to create a policy interpretation where nothing explicit is documented. On further review, I see worthy content and probably is not best presented in a standalone article, and that AfD is premature before discussion of a merge. The merge discussion should be held at the talk page of the target. If editors don't respect a consensus found there, there are ways to resolve the dispute. I endorse the close that fails to find a consensus to delete, and the flavour of keep is for discussion elsewhere, not DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] Dreadful close. Overturn You can only get non consensus here by disregarding policy based arguments in favour of assertions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] For what specific action do you see a consensus? --Michig (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to merge, probably to Snaefell Mountain Course#Named corners. The closing admin said: "There were a range of opinions expressed including delete, keep, and merge. In my view neither of those positions had sufficient support". OK. That might be true on the face of the AfD. But let's look at the substance of what happened. Who wanted to keep a stand-alone article? Two editors: Rocknrollmancer and Agljones. Who wanted to remove a stand-alone article (ie delete or merge)? Five editors: Andy Mabbett, Brianyoumans, Montanabw, JT and Lukeno94. And frankly, on any objective measure, the arguments of the latter group were stronger. So I see a fairly clear consensus. Sure, the consensus isn't to "delete". But there is a different consensus that Wikipedia should not have a stand-alone article on this subject. We then give effect to that consensus with a "merge", rather than "delete", as that option had reasonable support and will preserve the content that had been improved during the course of the AfD. As for the merge target, Snaefell Mountain Course#Named corners seems good although admittedly I'm not a subject matter expert. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endorse as within discretion. Deletion would be removing sourced content with no clear consensus to do so, keep isn't supported by the discussion and a merge closure would perhaps have been a supervote though I certainly would have endorsed that too as a somewhat reasonable combination of the various !votes. (How would I have closed that? I'd have passed on closing and !voted to merge.) Hobit (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] Just go ahead and merge it. Do it well, and probably no one will revert you. That afd certainly isn't any basis; if it had been closed as an outright keep, it would maybe be worth going through the bureaucracy of a formal overturn, but it wasn't. —Cryptic 00:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] I can almost certainly guarantee that any attempt at a merge would be reverted fairly quickly by one editor from that AfD; just look at their insistence of its notability, without providing any evidence of that fact. That's not a failure of AGF, that's seeing what's right in front of me. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endorse as a decent close, as there's no community consensus there to take any particular action. That shouldn't preclude a merge if someone wants to take on the responsibility. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC).[reply] Comment - I disagree strongly that it would be a "supervote" to delete, when we have only two keep !voters, and neither of them showed any proper evidence of notability. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] Nor did the delete !voters say much about the sources actually in the article. Your comments were the most on-point, but given that there appear to be non-primary sources in the article, your comments aren't hugely convincing that this doesn't meet the GNG. The delete !voters, on the whole, argued that coverage of a corner isn't what we should be covering. That's largely a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. A strong majority of folks is needed (IMO) for such an argument to be accepted. That didn't exist here. I tend to agree with the notion that we shouldn't have this article (thus my urging for a merge of all of these). Hobit (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] The sources that aren't primary generally lack in any sort of in-depth commentary; indeed, some of them are purely passing mentions. It is very much a WP:BOMBARD case in terms of the references. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] I certainly noted the bombard, but I don't have access to the paper sources and no one really commented on them (other than the primary ones). If you'd looked at them and reached that conclusion, that would have been a very different AfD and while I'd still have preferred a merge, deletion would have been within discretion. As it is, there isn't a strong enough GNG argument to delete IMO. Hobit (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] Nor do I have access to the sources, but a lot of them aren't even being used for the corner itself. Of the seven (!) references next to each other, four are pretty clearly primary and local (Isle of Man Department of Tourism, or their department of Economic Development), two are merely name drops going on the quotes given, and, as a result, I'm highly dubious about the other two; it can be reasonably expected that they are passing mentions as well, otherwise the other five would be redundant and not have been needed. The corner is not mentioned at all in ref 8; in fact, I'm not even sure what that reference is there for. Ref 9 is a primary/routine source. Ref 10 is just a book of place names. Ref 11 appears to have no relevance to the corner. Ref 12 is local, possibly primary, and not relevant to the corner. Ref 13 and 14 also appear to be primary/local (same "The Manx Experience" publisher). Ref 15 could well be independent, but it appears to have no relevance to the corner. Ref 16 and 17 are also apparently irrelevant and local/primary (Manx Nation Heritage). Ref 18 could be good; no way of checking for certain, but I'm dubious given everything else. Ref 19 is just a quote/passing mention, and is a local source anyway. Ref 20 is another passing mention. Ref 21 appears to be primary/local (The Manx Experience again). Ref 22 is definitely local (Isle of Man Newspapers), and is part of routine TT build-up coverage. Ref 23 falls into the same slot that ref 18 does. And this is literally just by analysing the publishers/authors and the context the references are being used in; we can discount all bar three or four of them almost entirely even without looking at them. And thus, it is a reasonable assumption that the other four don't add up to anything either. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 03:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endorse The close was quite reasonable as the discussion was marked by disagreement rather than consensus. Andrew D. (talk) 18:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - an extra head or two in the delete camp, but a hard slog given policy trends towards keep, and the delete arguments are absolute garbage. Brianyoumans says "delete", then links to an argument where he suggests reasons one might keep or merge, but not delete. Montanabw pleads a pretty naked that they're not interested, which is not an argument for deletion. I can't even figure out how I'm supposed to construe JTdale's comment into an argument to support deletion; something about google maps that doesn't connect to the article, and then the suggestion that merge might be a better way to organise the content (perhaps, but merge is fundamentally a keep position, so pairing with a !vote for deletion is nonsensical. And Lukeno94 suggests it doesn't "feel" like a notable kind of thing. These are piss-poor arguments. I probably would've endorsed a keep here, going over how piss-poor the delete "arguments" are. But it might be fair to read the discussion as unclear between merge and keep, even though they're basically the same position. Wily D 11:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] The point Montanabw actually made was "not GNG"; which is in agreement with the deletion rationale, which you also ignore, "No evidence of notability". Likewise, Lukeno94 explicitly states "This isn't remotely a notable corner". User:JTdale's comment, which you disparage, was clearly a response to a 'keep' rationale of "It is also named as a corner on the UK Ordnance Survey map for the Isle of Man (Sheet 95) and also named corner on Google Maps", to which you epithet "absolute garbage" would be better applied. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] Agreed. WilyD, stop cherry-picking parts of votes, when there are much stronger arguments within them. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] Misrepresenting the discussion and my comments is unpleasant, uncollegial behaviour. Please stop. Badgering everyone because the facts do not remotely support your position is not going to incline me (or anyone else, I suspect). to support your untenable position. Wily D 17:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] You called my vote, and other people's votes, piss-poor without even properly analysing it. To complain of being misrepresented is at best hypocritical, because you just misrepresented multiple people yourself. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] Guys, let's drop it. WilyD, I generally greatly respect your thoughts here but I think you didn't a disservice to at least a couple of the deletion !voters. There were some guideline/policy-based arguments there. I don't think they carried the day, but they were there. Hobit (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] Just to comment, Andy Mabbett has explained my comment perfectly. I have no time to comment otherwise due to exams but I wanted to confirm my position on that. JT_dale^Talk~ 05:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] Linking a policy isn't an argument if the policy doesn't apply, sorry. Other than that, if PonW and Luke want to strike their comments, I'd do the same to my responses, but I can't let their badgering and misreprentation stand unchalleneged. They might be upset I revealed the flaws in their otherwise untenable position, but if you don't your piss-poor arguments exposed as such, don't bring them to DRV; and if you don't want people to respond, don't misrepresent them and sling unjustifiable insults at them. Wily D 10:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] I'd say the comments in the AfD about primary sources were valid and not just a policy wave. YMMV. Hobit (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to delete. I've been plotzing over closing this for a couple of days now, but I find I can't pull the trigger, so I'm going to comment instead (which, I suspect, will just make the job that much harder for the next janitor who wanders by). The key thought in the closing statement is that the !votes are split between delete, keep, and merge, so none of them emerge as a consensus opinion. I don't look at it that way. When I'm closing an AfD, the big question in my mind is keep or not keep. There's a lot of different ways to not keep, and I lump them all together when answering the first big question. In this case, I think it's clear that not keep is the consensus. Then, you need to say, OK, if we're not going to keep it, how do we do that? Straight delete? Merge somewhere? Redirect? What the closing admin did here is split the first big question into three piles, and none of them emerged as big enough to carry the day. I'm not saying that's wrong, per se, but it's not the way I do it (and, yes, I feel quite conflicted simultaneously saying the closer wasn't wrong, yet I'm arguing to overturn). And, while I know this isn't AfD Round Two, I can't help looking at the article itself. It's got a long list of references, but none of them strike me as establishing that this meets WP:N. They're all about racing, or race tracks, in general, and just happen to mention this curve in passing. Volume, yes. Quality, no. Perhaps I've missed it, but I don't see any in the lot which are about the subject of this article. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] "Merge" does not support deletion. So what does a closer do with a rough consensus to "not keep as a standalone article". They should close, whether as Keep or No consensus, and redirect as an ordinary editorial action. AfD should be silent on merge or not merge discussions, or the scope creep will swamp it. DRV too should hold it above these questions. The obvious action required by detractors of this article is to redirect, see if anyone actively objects, and then discuss with those who object. This DRV nomination seems to be attempting to game an untested merge and redirect action. The closer is not at fault. DRV does not solve merge questions. There is a problem, but this is the wrong forum for the problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] Wow, I disagree with this reasoning strongly. It seems to misunderstand how to judge an AfD. Which is surprising because I've found most of your closes to be reasonable. But the long-and-short is that we don't delete sourced content without consensus to do so. And a merge !vote isn't moving toward that consensus. Further, merge is pretty clearly the right outcome here. The sources are above the bar a for literal reading of WP:N. The discussion didn't support deletion. And NC is certainly not outside of the closer's discretion. In no way can an overturn to delete be justified here. I will say if admins are going to start judging merge !votes as delete !votes, I'll just move to keep even when I think merge is the better outcome. At least that can be done later editorially. Hobit (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] @Hobit:, thanks for your comment. I'm not sure I agree completely, but you make some good points which I will certainly consider the next time I'm closing a close discussion. Please don't change the way you vote because of what I said; be true to yourself and everything else will work out. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to "not keep", implemented by way of redirect to A18 road (Isle of Man), allowing a merger from the history if desired. Like RoySmith, I believe that the closer erred by not recognizing that while there was no consensus for an outright deletion, there was consensus not to retain a separate article about the topic. I have no opinion about the notability of the topic, and this is not the forum in which to discuss it. Sandstein 19:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] Comment. When those who didn't find a non-consensus can't agree among themselves what the consensus was, I think that just backs up my no consensus close. The AfD itself was a wrong-venue merge proposal without a proposal to merge anywhere specific and in three weeks lacked a firm proposal that gained consensus. Something other than keeping as a standalone page would be the right thing to do with the article in my opinion, but my opinion doesn't matter when closing the discussion and unfortunately the AfD failed to come up with consensus on what that something is. A discussion on the article's talk page re. merging some of the content to a specific article (e.g. Snaefell Mountain Course) would likely gain consensus, and would in my view would be more appropriate than prolonging this discussion to try to gain consensus on where to merge or redirect to. --Michig (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Some sources have mentioned this road in passing as there was no clear consensus to delete, however I assume this will eventually be merged. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endorse "no consensus closure" Although the consensus was against retaining this as a separate article, there was no consensus about what particular action to take. Therefore, the AfD was correctly closed as "no consensus". The closing admin wrote above: A discussion on the article's talk page re. merging some of the content to a specific article (e.g. Snaefell Mountain Course) would likely gain consensus, and would in my view would be more appropriate than prolonging this discussion to try to gain consensus on where to merge or redirect to. I will start an RfC on the talk page about a merge. Cunard (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] I have started an RfC at Talk:Windy Corner, Isle of Man#RfC: Proposed merge to Snaefell Mountain Course. Cunard (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] I notified all the participants at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windy Corner of this RfC. I did not notify the DRV participants because I am assuming that they are watching the DRV. Cunard (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endorse "no consensus" is a reasonable reading of that discussion. The notability bar for geographic features is set extremely low, which is probably as it should be. I suspect the eventual fate of the article will be a merge, whether now or sometime up the slightly bendy road. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Windy Corner – No consensus closure endorsed. Future AfD discussions and/or merge discussions seem warranted, however, given the general tone of the discussion. – IronGargoyle (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Bad close. Community consensus is clearly against keeping this article on a non-notable subject. See also discussion at User talk:Michig#Windy Corner. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as closer. The point here is that there wasn't clear consensus for any particular action. While there may have been a consensus against keeping this as a standalone article, that doesn't equate to consensus to delete. --Michig (talk) 10:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, as per my comment here. Closer has, in my opinion, misinterpreted policy and has also failed to weigh up the votes correctly. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which policy would that be? --Michig (talk) 10:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Well within admin discretion. A call of rough consensus to delete I would consider dangerously close to a supervote. Participants were not convincing each other. I recommend the advice at Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know more of what Spartaz is thinking. "Policy" is very uncertain with regard to obscure but real things versus WP:NOTPAPER. I read very little coherent discussion of policy, and so disagree that the closer is invited to create a policy interpretation where nothing explicit is documented. On further review, I see worthy content and probably is not best presented in a standalone article, and that AfD is premature before discussion of a merge. The merge discussion should be held at the talk page of the target. If editors don't respect a consensus found there, there are ways to resolve the dispute. I endorse the close that fails to find a consensus to delete, and the flavour of keep is for discussion elsewhere, not DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadful close. Overturn You can only get non consensus here by disregarding policy based arguments in favour of assertions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For what specific action do you see a consensus? --Michig (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to merge, probably to Snaefell Mountain Course#Named corners. The closing admin said: "There were a range of opinions expressed including delete, keep, and merge. In my view neither of those positions had sufficient support". OK. That might be true on the face of the AfD. But let's look at the substance of what happened. Who wanted to keep a stand-alone article? Two editors: Rocknrollmancer and Agljones. Who wanted to remove a stand-alone article (ie delete or merge)? Five editors: Andy Mabbett, Brianyoumans, Montanabw, JT and Lukeno94. And frankly, on any objective measure, the arguments of the latter group were stronger. So I see a fairly clear consensus. Sure, the consensus isn't to "delete". But there is a different consensus that Wikipedia should not have a stand-alone article on this subject. We then give effect to that consensus with a "merge", rather than "delete", as that option had reasonable support and will preserve the content that had been improved during the course of the AfD. As for the merge target, Snaefell Mountain Course#Named corners seems good although admittedly I'm not a subject matter expert. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as within discretion. Deletion would be removing sourced content with no clear consensus to do so, keep isn't supported by the discussion and a merge closure would perhaps have been a supervote though I certainly would have endorsed that too as a somewhat reasonable combination of the various !votes. (How would I have closed that? I'd have passed on closing and !voted to merge.) Hobit (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just go ahead and merge it. Do it well, and probably no one will revert you. That afd certainly isn't any basis; if it had been closed as an outright keep, it would maybe be worth going through the bureaucracy of a formal overturn, but it wasn't. —Cryptic 00:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can almost certainly guarantee that any attempt at a merge would be reverted fairly quickly by one editor from that AfD; just look at their insistence of its notability, without providing any evidence of that fact. That's not a failure of AGF, that's seeing what's right in front of me. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as a decent close, as there's no community consensus there to take any particular action. That shouldn't preclude a merge if someone wants to take on the responsibility. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Comment - I disagree strongly that it would be a "supervote" to delete, when we have only two keep !voters, and neither of them showed any proper evidence of notability. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nor did the delete !voters say much about the sources actually in the article. Your comments were the most on-point, but given that there appear to be non-primary sources in the article, your comments aren't hugely convincing that this doesn't meet the GNG. The delete !voters, on the whole, argued that coverage of a corner isn't what we should be covering. That's largely a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. A strong majority of folks is needed (IMO) for such an argument to be accepted. That didn't exist here. I tend to agree with the notion that we shouldn't have this article (thus my urging for a merge of all of these). Hobit (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that aren't primary generally lack in any sort of in-depth commentary; indeed, some of them are purely passing mentions. It is very much a WP:BOMBARD case in terms of the references. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly noted the bombard, but I don't have access to the paper sources and no one really commented on them (other than the primary ones). If you'd looked at them and reached that conclusion, that would have been a very different AfD and while I'd still have preferred a merge, deletion would have been within discretion. As it is, there isn't a strong enough GNG argument to delete IMO. Hobit (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nor do I have access to the sources, but a lot of them aren't even being used for the corner itself. Of the seven (!) references next to each other, four are pretty clearly primary and local (Isle of Man Department of Tourism, or their department of Economic Development), two are merely name drops going on the quotes given, and, as a result, I'm highly dubious about the other two; it can be reasonably expected that they are passing mentions as well, otherwise the other five would be redundant and not have been needed. The corner is not mentioned at all in ref 8; in fact, I'm not even sure what that reference is there for. Ref 9 is a primary/routine source. Ref 10 is just a book of place names. Ref 11 appears to have no relevance to the corner. Ref 12 is local, possibly primary, and not relevant to the corner. Ref 13 and 14 also appear to be primary/local (same "The Manx Experience" publisher). Ref 15 could well be independent, but it appears to have no relevance to the corner. Ref 16 and 17 are also apparently irrelevant and local/primary (Manx Nation Heritage). Ref 18 could be good; no way of checking for certain, but I'm dubious given everything else. Ref 19 is just a quote/passing mention, and is a local source anyway. Ref 20 is another passing mention. Ref 21 appears to be primary/local (The Manx Experience again). Ref 22 is definitely local (Isle of Man Newspapers), and is part of routine TT build-up coverage. Ref 23 falls into the same slot that ref 18 does. And this is literally just by analysing the publishers/authors and the context the references are being used in; we can discount all bar three or four of them almost entirely even without looking at them. And thus, it is a reasonable assumption that the other four don't add up to anything either. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 03:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse The close was quite reasonable as the discussion was marked by disagreement rather than consensus. Andrew D. (talk) 18:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - an extra head or two in the delete camp, but a hard slog given policy trends towards keep, and the delete arguments are absolute garbage. Brianyoumans says "delete", then links to an argument where he suggests reasons one might keep or merge, but not delete. Montanabw pleads a pretty naked that they're not interested, which is not an argument for deletion. I can't even figure out how I'm supposed to construe JTdale's comment into an argument to support deletion; something about google maps that doesn't connect to the article, and then the suggestion that merge might be a better way to organise the content (perhaps, but merge is fundamentally a keep position, so pairing with a !vote for deletion is nonsensical. And Lukeno94 suggests it doesn't "feel" like a notable kind of thing. These are piss-poor arguments. I probably would've endorsed a keep here, going over how piss-poor the delete "arguments" are. But it might be fair to read the discussion as unclear between merge and keep, even though they're basically the same position. WilyD 11:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The point Montanabw actually made was "not GNG"; which is in agreement with the deletion rationale, which you also ignore, "No evidence of notability". Likewise, Lukeno94 explicitly states "This isn't remotely a notable corner". User:JTdale's comment, which you disparage, was clearly a response to a 'keep' rationale of "It is also named as a corner on the UK Ordnance Survey map for the Isle of Man (Sheet 95) and also named corner on Google Maps", to which you epithet "absolute garbage" would be better applied. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. WilyD, stop cherry-picking parts of votes, when there are much stronger arguments within them. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresenting the discussion and my comments is unpleasant, uncollegial behaviour. Please stop. Badgering everyone because the facts do not remotely support your position is not going to incline me (or anyone else, I suspect). to support your untenable position. Wily D 17:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You called my vote, and other people's votes, piss-poor without even properly analysing it. To complain of being misrepresented is at best hypocritical, because you just misrepresented multiple people yourself. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, let's drop it. WilyD, I generally greatly respect your thoughts here but I think you didn't a disservice to at least a couple of the deletion !voters. There were some guideline/policy-based arguments there. I don't think they carried the day, but they were there. Hobit (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to comment, Andy Mabbett has explained my comment perfectly. I have no time to comment otherwise due to exams but I wanted to confirm my position on that. JT_dale^Talk~ 05:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Linking a policy isn't an argument if the policy doesn't apply, sorry. Other than that, if PonW and Luke want to strike their comments, I'd do the same to my responses, but I can't let their badgering and misreprentation stand unchalleneged. They might be upset I revealed the flaws in their otherwise untenable position, but if you don't your piss-poor arguments exposed as such, don't bring them to DRV; and if you don't want people to respond, don't misrepresent them and sling unjustifiable insults at them. Wily D 10:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the comments in the AfD about primary sources were valid and not just a policy wave. YMMV. Hobit (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to delete. I've been plotzing over closing this for a couple of days now, but I find I can't pull the trigger, so I'm going to comment instead (which, I suspect, will just make the job that much harder for the next janitor who wanders by). The key thought in the closing statement is that the !votes are split between delete, keep, and merge, so none of them emerge as a consensus opinion. I don't look at it that way. When I'm closing an AfD, the big question in my mind is keep or not keep. There's a lot of different ways to not keep, and I lump them all together when answering the first big question. In this case, I think it's clear that not keep is the consensus. Then, you need to say, OK, if we're not going to keep it, how do we do that? Straight delete? Merge somewhere? Redirect? What the closing admin did here is split the first big question into three piles, and none of them emerged as big enough to carry the day. I'm not saying that's wrong, per se, but it's not the way I do it (and, yes, I feel quite conflicted simultaneously saying the closer wasn't wrong, yet I'm arguing to overturn). And, while I know this isn't AfD Round Two, I can't help looking at the article itself. It's got a long list of references, but none of them strike me as establishing that this meets WP:N. They're all about racing, or race tracks, in general, and just happen to mention this curve in passing. Volume, yes. Quality, no. Perhaps I've missed it, but I don't see any in the lot which are about the subject of this article. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Merge" does not support deletion. So what does a closer do with a rough consensus to "not keep as a standalone article". They should close, whether as Keep or No consensus, and redirect as an ordinary editorial action. AfD should be silent on merge or not merge discussions, or the scope creep will swamp it. DRV too should hold it above these questions. The obvious action required by detractors of this article is to redirect, see if anyone actively objects, and then discuss with those who object. This DRV nomination seems to be attempting to game an untested merge and redirect action. The closer is not at fault. DRV does not solve merge questions. There is a problem, but this is the wrong forum for the problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I disagree with this reasoning strongly. It seems to misunderstand how to judge an AfD. Which is surprising because I've found most of your closes to be reasonable. But the long-and-short is that we don't delete sourced content without consensus to do so. And a merge !vote isn't moving toward that consensus. Further, merge is pretty clearly the right outcome here. The sources are above the bar a for literal reading of WP:N. The discussion didn't support deletion. And NC is certainly not outside of the closer's discretion. In no way can an overturn to delete be justified here. I will say if admins are going to start judging merge !votes as delete !votes, I'll just move to keep even when I think merge is the better outcome. At least that can be done later editorially. Hobit (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobit:, thanks for your comment. I'm not sure I agree completely, but you make some good points which I will certainly consider the next time I'm closing a close discussion. Please don't change the way you vote because of what I said; be true to yourself and everything else will work out. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to "not keep", implemented by way of redirect to A18 road (Isle of Man), allowing a merger from the history if desired. Like RoySmith, I believe that the closer erred by not recognizing that while there was no consensus for an outright deletion, there was consensus not to retain a separate article about the topic. I have no opinion about the notability of the topic, and this is not the forum in which to discuss it. Sandstein 19:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. When those who didn't find a non-consensus can't agree among themselves what the consensus was, I think that just backs up my no consensus close. The AfD itself was a wrong-venue merge proposal without a proposal to merge anywhere specific and in three weeks lacked a firm proposal that gained consensus. Something other than keeping as a standalone page would be the right thing to do with the article in my opinion, but my opinion doesn't matter when closing the discussion and unfortunately the AfD failed to come up with consensus on what that something is. A discussion on the article's talk page re. merging some of the content to a specific article (e.g. Snaefell Mountain Course) would likely gain consensus, and would in my view would be more appropriate than prolonging this discussion to try to gain consensus on where to merge or redirect to. --Michig (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Some sources have mentioned this road in passing as there was no clear consensus to delete, however I assume this will eventually be merged. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse "no consensus closure" Although the consensus was against retaining this as a separate article, there was no consensus about what particular action to take. Therefore, the AfD was correctly closed as "no consensus". The closing admin wrote above:
A discussion on the article's talk page re. merging some of the content to a specific article (e.g. Snaefell Mountain Course) would likely gain consensus, and would in my view would be more appropriate than prolonging this discussion to try to gain consensus on where to merge or redirect to.
I will start an RfC on the talk page about a merge. Cunard (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have started an RfC at Talk:Windy Corner, Isle of Man#RfC: Proposed merge to Snaefell Mountain Course. Cunard (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notified all the participants at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windy Corner of this RfC. I did not notify the DRV participants because I am assuming that they are watching the DRV. Cunard (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse "no consensus" is a reasonable reading of that discussion. The notability bar for geographic features is set extremely low, which is probably as it should be. I suspect the eventual fate of the article will be a merge, whether now or sometime up the slightly bendy road. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Ginger Hall – "No consensus" closure endorsed. – Sandstein 19:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ginger Hall (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Bad close. Community consensus is clearly against keeping this article on a non-notable subject. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endorse as closer. The point here is that there wasn't clear consensus for any particular action. While there may have been a consensus against keeping this as a standalone article, that doesn't equate to consensus to delete. --Michig (talk) 10:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endorse as per Windy Corner immediately above. Also noting that neither User:MBisanz nor User:Northamerica1000 saw a rough consensus makes it very plausible that the third admin considering closing finds a "no consensus". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] That note is meaningless. Only two people !voted before MBisanz relisted, four did afterwards, and I !voted after NA1000's relist. In other words, there was more input each time, so no, that plausibility isn't valid. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to merge, probably to Snaefell Mountain Course#Named corners. The closing admin said: "There were a range of opinions expressed including delete, keep, and merge. In my view neither of those positions had sufficient support". OK. That might be true on the face of the AfD. But let's look at the substance of what happened. Who wanted to keep a stand-alone article? Three editors: Rocknrollmancer, Artw, and Quis separabit. Who wanted to remove a stand-alone article (ie delete or merge)? Seven editors: Andy Mabbett, Brianyoumans, Montanabw, Gerda Arendt, Brianhe, Suriel and Lukeno94. And frankly, on any objective measure, the arguments of the latter group were stronger. So I see a fairly clear consensus. Sure, the consensus isn't to "delete". But there is a different consensus that Wikipedia should not have a stand-alone article on this subject. We then give effect to that consensus with a "merge", rather than "delete", as that option had reasonable support and will preserve the content that had been improved during the course of the AfD. As for the merge target, Snaefell Mountain Course#Named corners seems good although admittedly I'm not a subject matter expert. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] So I should have closed it as merge to an article that wasn't mentioned anywhere in the AfD discussion, even though nobody suggested merging it there? --Michig (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] That's my suggestion of a merge target now; it seems a better suggestion than the ones suggested in the AfD. My concern with finding a merge target isn't "what should the closing admin have done" but "what should we do now". --Mkativerata (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] So what would have been your close outcome? 'Merge somewhere'? We're not here to give opinions on what should happen to the article, we're just looking at the whether closure should stand. I agree looking at the article that merging somewhere would be appropriate but that discussion can take place on the article's talk page. What benefit do we get from overturning the AfD close, and to what? --Michig (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] If I were to have closed this I would have said (a) there is a consensus that this article should not exist, and (b) given effect to that consensus by creating a redirect to one of the targets suggested. This redirect would be a temporary measure to facilitate a merge (to wherever) at editorial discretion. I wouldn't have let the failure to seek agreement on the minutiae of a merge target get in the way of the clear consensus that there should not be a stand-alone article. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] That is a very good argument here. I can't fault the closer for a NC close, but I do think this argument would have been a better way forward. Hobit (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endorse as above. That said, if the closer of the DRV runs with an IAR merge, that would be fine by me. It's clearly the right outcome (at least until more text and better sources show up) and I'd hope it would keep nearly everyone happy. DRV probably isn't the best place for IAR, but this seems like as good a reason as will ever show up. Hobit (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] I agree with Hobit, as I often do. "No consensus" is an accurate summary of the discussion, and "merge" is the conclusion the discussion should have reached but didn't.—S Marshall T/C 17:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endorse There was no consensus to delete. The appeal's claim to the contrary is not supported by any evidence and just seems to be vexatious repetition of an assertion which has repeatedly failed to persuade. Andrew D. (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - clear lack of consensus in the discussion, one would have to be totally unfamiliar with the discussion to honestly claim otherwise. Appealling to wider consensus on geographic features is not really possible here. Supervoting consensusless discussions into merges disrespects the community in the short run, and tends to make sorting out a good solution harder in the long run. There's no real upside. Wily D 10:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Ginger Hall – "No consensus" closure endorsed. – Sandstein 19:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Bad close. Community consensus is clearly against keeping this article on a non-notable subject. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as closer. The point here is that there wasn't clear consensus for any particular action. While there may have been a consensus against keeping this as a standalone article, that doesn't equate to consensus to delete. --Michig (talk) 10:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as per Windy Corner immediately above. Also noting that neither User:MBisanz nor User:Northamerica1000 saw a rough consensus makes it very plausible that the third admin considering closing finds a "no consensus". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That note is meaningless. Only two people !voted before MBisanz relisted, four did afterwards, and I !voted after NA1000's relist. In other words, there was more input each time, so no, that plausibility isn't valid. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to merge, probably to Snaefell Mountain Course#Named corners. The closing admin said: "There were a range of opinions expressed including delete, keep, and merge. In my view neither of those positions had sufficient support". OK. That might be true on the face of the AfD. But let's look at the substance of what happened. Who wanted to keep a stand-alone article? Three editors: Rocknrollmancer, Artw, and Quis separabit. Who wanted to remove a stand-alone article (ie delete or merge)? Seven editors: Andy Mabbett, Brianyoumans, Montanabw, Gerda Arendt, Brianhe, Suriel and Lukeno94. And frankly, on any objective measure, the arguments of the latter group were stronger. So I see a fairly clear consensus. Sure, the consensus isn't to "delete". But there is a different consensus that Wikipedia should not have a stand-alone article on this subject. We then give effect to that consensus with a "merge", rather than "delete", as that option had reasonable support and will preserve the content that had been improved during the course of the AfD. As for the merge target, Snaefell Mountain Course#Named corners seems good although admittedly I'm not a subject matter expert. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So I should have closed it as merge to an article that wasn't mentioned anywhere in the AfD discussion, even though nobody suggested merging it there? --Michig (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's my suggestion of a merge target now; it seems a better suggestion than the ones suggested in the AfD. My concern with finding a merge target isn't "what should the closing admin have done" but "what should we do now". --Mkativerata (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what would have been your close outcome? 'Merge somewhere'? We're not here to give opinions on what should happen to the article, we're just looking at the whether closure should stand. I agree looking at the article that merging somewhere would be appropriate but that discussion can take place on the article's talk page. What benefit do we get from overturning the AfD close, and to what? --Michig (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to have closed this I would have said (a) there is a consensus that this article should not exist, and (b) given effect to that consensus by creating a redirect to one of the targets suggested. This redirect would be a temporary measure to facilitate a merge (to wherever) at editorial discretion. I wouldn't have let the failure to seek agreement on the minutiae of a merge target get in the way of the clear consensus that there should not be a stand-alone article. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very good argument here. I can't fault the closer for a NC close, but I do think this argument would have been a better way forward. Hobit (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as above. That said, if the closer of the DRV runs with an IAR merge, that would be fine by me. It's clearly the right outcome (at least until more text and better sources show up) and I'd hope it would keep nearly everyone happy. DRV probably isn't the best place for IAR, but this seems like as good a reason as will ever show up. Hobit (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Hobit, as I often do. "No consensus" is an accurate summary of the discussion, and "merge" is the conclusion the discussion should have reached but didn't.—S Marshall T/C 17:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There was no consensus to delete. The appeal's claim to the contrary is not supported by any evidence and just seems to be vexatious repetition of an assertion which has repeatedly failed to persuade. Andrew D. (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - clear lack of consensus in the discussion, one would have to be totally unfamiliar with the discussion to honestly claim otherwise. Appealling to wider consensus on geographic features is not really possible here. Supervoting consensusless discussions into merges disrespects the community in the short run, and tends to make sorting out a good solution harder in the long run. There's no real upside. Wily D 10:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.