Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Flat Bastion Road (2nd nomination)

2715:

off the height of a stair step, emergency vehicles are dispatched to close the road and re-route traffic. The government keeps records and studies about road usage and traffic accidents. In order for citizens to know where to find public roads to drive on, an elaborate system of maps exists, so that maps are sold at most filling stations and large retailers. There are a variety of independent reliable publishers of maps that show the roads in detail. In the electronic age, maps have become even more widely disseminated in electronic devices, with computerized voices that can talk about public roads. The U.S. Post Office is another major institution in the U.S. that gives extensive attention to roads—the entire system of U.S. Mail uses a system called the "street address" that is tied to roads, which is a design that goes back more than a hundred years. Roads are often mentioned on evening news reports in the U.S. to describe where various events occurred. The point is that public roads in the U.S. will always easily pass WP:GNG. Another point, elements of the gazetteer are useful as short articles. Such articles need only be more than a statement of existence. The issue for Knowledge (XXG) with roads is WP:NOT.

2397:

it basically happens now, despite some minor dubious stuff and some severe source padding), we would naver have had a DRV, a second AfD, and a lot of editors who have lost whatever credibility they had before this episode. There are apparently a number of people who feel that it is perfectly allright to insert self-invented facts into articles if that helps in keeping them, and a number of people who fail to see any problem with that. Luckily, there are also a number of people (again from inside and outside the GibraltarpediA project) who play by the rules, e.g. adding (in this second AfD) information which was not available to me or most other commentators initially, but which seems to be reliable and correct. This second AfD is basically a model of how the first one should have gone, but which was made impossible by people like Colonel Warden, Prioryman, and (especially) Laura Hale. That Prioryman is also spearheading the GibraltarpediA project should be worrying to everyone involved with the project, Glam, or Knowledge (XXG), but is not relevant to this article's fate.

460:"It is our policy that Knowledge (XXG) is not a bureaucracy". That has to be the most self-defeating argument yet. As for "the object has been subject to change", yes, the fabrications that lead to the keep result of the previous AfD, and the exposure of them that lead to the "relist" at the DRV, have finally ended in the version I suggested as being a fair base of discussion being implemented (not by me). So we now have a decent, broadly correct article to base an AfD on, instead of the travesty you defended and aggravated last time. If you (and a few others) had played things fair the last time instead of ignoring our most basic policies, then one AfD would have been sufficient. But it is clear that policies only count when they fit your preferred result, and can safely be ignored otherwise. Your "speedy keep" above is a nice example, your blatant misuse of sources in the previous AfD is another. A fundamental principle of law is that you don't fabricate evidence nor lie to the court. If you want to invoke normal rules of law here, you should have long been blocked. 2177:- Interesting article. Knowledge (XXG) has the notional purpose of being a universal repository of knowledge. The point of a universal repository is that it is all about articles that people find interesting to read or interestng to write. What's the point otherwise, except to allow pontificators to pontificate? The only point of Knowledge (XXG) censorship is to keep out the untrue and the unjustifiably dangerous. Too many articles are merged because someone wise has decided they don't see enough importance in a subject to keep it separate. Then the development of the article focusing on a different subject means that you look for something on Knowledge (XXG) you need to find out about and you're redirected to an article now contains zero information about the subject of your search. 1250:, this article goes beyond that. The other article is clearly notable. There is no limit to what can be written about a notable article. There is nothing that says subject A isn't as notable as subject B, so subject A is limited to 23 kb. Once a topic is notable, there is no requirement that a source used in that article is talking specifically about the subject. It is only required that the sources support the fact stated in the article. Unless you have an argument saying that none of these sources support anything in the article, I do not understand what problem you have with those sources. In addition, can you please point out one thing that would make 2319:. Good grief, all this vitriol over one little road. Don't we have better things to do with our time? I've read the previous AfD and this one, and I have to say there seem to be a few people here who are truly desperate to get this article deleted and are insulting anyone who disagrees with them. Why, I have no idea. However, I can see no good reason to delete an article on an historic road in an historic city. And let's all remember that Knowledge (XXG) is not a bureaucracy and guidelines are not set in stone - too many claims here (like the one just above) that they must be followed to the letter. Rubbish. That's why we have AfD discussions. -- 402:

clearly invalid here. As for the 5P, that says that "It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." "Incorporating elements of" doesn't mean "every street that may perhaps be mentioned in a gazetteer should be a bluelink here". It is generally excepted that we include all geographic features (mountains, rivers, ...), and all officially recognised populated places (cities, towns, ...). Below that level, the general notability guidelines are the ruling factor. Notable streets may get an article, non notable ones don't.

2334:

history for the road, claming that source X said something which wasn't in that source at all, and/or misusing policy in rather blatant ways. If those people feel insulted, it is only because their own actions boomeranged against them. That you are seemingly more worried about people who have discussions within the Knowledge (XXG) rules, but who you disagree with, than about people you agree with but who feel that basic honesty and following policies don't apply when it is for the greater good (i.e. keeping an article on a road), is your problem.

331:, (insert other similarly subjective guideline here)" I'm actually not against it in any form and would much prefer it to be kept and be potentially improved, but watching all the nonsense nominations it already went through during last week I realized the fact that no matter what the article will not see the rest until a certain person will achieve his/her personal agenda. So let's just end all the petty arguing and finish this whole farce once and for all, shall we? 432:. We're here to write articles of this sort, not to have interminable discussions which loop back on themselves so that they never end. To have a deletion discussion, we require a clear statement of the supposed problem requiring deletion. The article has been subject to change and continues to be edited. A pointer to earlier discussions is therefore inadequate as grounds for a new discussion. It's like 841:. Topographical features and places are commonly well documented in geographical works such as atlases and so it's easy to verify the basic geographical facts. Nominating such places for deletion is disruptive because it generates useless pages like this discussion which waste the time and energy of our volunteer editors. That goes double when the discussion is repeated and protracted, as in this case. 1196: 2081:

edits only because they are part of or in the scope of a project you like is not the way forward. A project should be here to improve Knowledge (XXG), not to defend its articles and editors at all costs. The article is now at least based in reality, whereas it was largely a work of fiction during most of the previous AfD (not at the start!) and during the DRV.

669:, google searches are not a reason to delete. In my experience, local libraries will hold good material about such topics and they are not known to Google. Local archives are the sort of place that the Gibraltarpedia project is well suited to investigate and they should be given reasonable time for such work - the article was only created a few days ago. 1712:

has more coverage that Delaware Route 92 in publications and many other roads we have on here. You can give the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument but when making a decision about content we must compare it with other articles. Half of the roads in the states have extremely poor coverage, next to nothing in books yet articles are built based on map observation.. ♦

2160:. That article is far from complete, with a number of headings with limited content. If all street listed had similar coverage to this article, that article with be overburdened. The article is now aq substantiual one with a lot of references. There is quite sufficient centent to be worth its preservation. 642:(though I can't see anything worth merging that's not in the target article already): No evidence of notability for this road in reliable sources. My own Google searches turned up nothing even faintly promising in terms of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. It's basically an unremakable and 2714:

Roads attract significant attention in the U.S. One way that roads are used is to drive automobiles. The citizens want their government(s) to pay attention to public roads, and keep them in repair. Even small holes three- to six-inches deep become a matter of urgency. If a road has an 8-inch drop

2487:

Trivial mentions do not add up to significant coverage of a subject, otherwise enough phone book entries would warrant an article on anyone. The notability guideline you mention says "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention", not "Throw enough trivial mentions into an article and it will

968:

it makes your comments policy-based reasoning but when that's shot down, it's suddenly wikilawyering. That's a rather hollow and disingenuous response to being disagreed with. I appreciate that you tried to go through my contribs to look for something, but I'm not exactly trying to keep articles in

712:

The article contains much useful geographical information which is nicely formatted and reasonably well presented. Deletion would be obviously disruptive to the process of development is it would make all this and its history available only to admins. There seems to be no reason for such disruption

348:

for being an unremarkable street without significant coverage beyond normal repair works and very minor local news. While a merge is better than having a standalone article on this, it doesn't make much sense to create articles listing non notable streets. Looking at the list of "planned articles" at

2080:

Not everything is about GibraltarpediA, you know. Editors like Colonel Warden aren't even a part of the project. Lies are lies, no matter who says or repeats them. Even in this AfD, Colonel Warden seems unable to use correct arguments, instead twisting reality to fit his opinion. Defending people or

1362:

have a monopoly on the interpretation of the policy. The entire purpose of the policy is to prevent minor viewpoints to be written about as if they are major viewpoints. The policy goes on to create stipulations so that minor events (not viewpoints), don't become a large part of a biography giving

2396:

Actually, the effort put into deleting this article was because the subject appeared to be totally unnotable, and because a number of people then started fabricating notability for the subject by "accidentally" misreading source after source. If the article had been developed in a correct way (like

1706:

I'm not looking at subject matter, I'm looking at sources. It is common to compile sources which only contain a brief mention to write articles. A lot of quite notable film actors who only had very minor roles don't have extensive coverage either, same goes for many roads in the US with little more

1465:

to the situation and showing how it didn't lead to the conclusion you drew from it. In that case, I pointed to the examples of what undue does affect to show that this wasn't in the same area as those examples. Saying that I'm saying it doesn't apply solely because it isn't specifically listed is

697:

We create articles based on actual relaible sources, not on the faint hope that someday, somehow, somewhere someone might perhaps find adequate sourcing in some hypothetical dusty basement or hatbox. If someone actually does do the research you suggest and come up with reliable sources that warrant

646:

street, with coverage limited to news reports of road maintainance and the like that are of local interest only. This is by no means one of the major streets of the colony. Claims for historic significance are specious, as this applies to the bastion itself, and not to the road, which is of little,

353:

doesn't give the impression of being restrictive at all. There is nothing that sets this road apart from millions of other roads in every town and city in the world. It hasn't played any significant historical role, isn't a touristic or shopping highlight, isn't a major thoroughfare, isn't renowned

2457:

even specifies as to what is needed in sources depending on the depth of coverage - "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources." Not all the sources are in depth so there is a higher number of them that cover this topic at

1711:

meet notability requirements based on nothing but maps. Where is the extensive coverage in reliable sources? Its almost as if you expect a book devoted to this road. I honestly don't think there is a single thing you could find on this road which would change you mind on it. From what I can see if

2269:

information such as this is a wonderful way of building an encyclopaedia; and as a bonus, possibly encouraging new editors to the project. As an aside, I have a dream that those fixated on a "delete" outcome start to realise how out-of-touch they (as well as some of the policies that act as their

1158:

Let's continue reading, shall we? "For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic". This falls under none of these categories. An article like

1141:

completely, while it does discuss viewpoints, that's not all it entails: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." There's already content in the article, and what's

1116:

into this? That refers to the amount of weight we give to a particular viewpoint, not how much we write about a a specific subject within an article. If we have the information on Flat Bastion Road, we expand that section. When we get the information on another street, we expand that section.

498:

I'm commenting on your edits. The content you contributed and defended was a bunch of lies. It's indeed time to say enough, that's why we have this new AfD and that's why you should be blocked. If you can't be trusted as an editor, you have become a liability. But that's something for a different

2333:

If you are including me with those "few people", then I have not insulted everyone who disagrees with me; I have only highlighted the behaviour of a number of people who were so desperate to keep the article that they used the power of their imagination as arguments, inventing a completely fake

1723:

It doesn't matter what exists on some other article, that's not going to somehow make this one more notable. If you think another article is insufficient, tag it or nominate it for deletion. However, that another article is also not notable doesn't somehow convey notability to this article. -

1573:

Knowledge (XXG) is about providing information rather than about preventing it. I personaly have no use for the information in this article but I think someone else might. And the notability guidelines must not be misused as a means for censorship but as a protection against disinformation. The

1519:

is "not how much we write about a a specific subject within an article" when the policy itself says in no uncertain terms something completely to the contrary (depth of detail, quantity of text). When you're saying one thing, and the core content policy says another, I'm pretty sure we go with

2373:

article is not due to its lack of notability, neither is it because of any harm that could come to wikipedia or the subject of the article (BLP) but because the article is associated with a wikiproject that some people want to erradicate. And as saind before WP:IDONTLIKEIT is still no deletion

1850:

Nothing added since the start of this discussion is worth merging though. The names of some families living there now yields five "sources" (actually five instances of the same source of course), but none of it is of any encyclopedic value. We don't list the families living in a village, road,

401:

Have you read the "speedy keep" argument you propose completely? Including the "Exception: If the nominator indicates that the nomination is procedural in nature, then the nomination is ineligible for speedy keep. This includes a "relist" result from deletion review"? part? Your speedy keep is

2613:

It's not clear what the point of this AFD discussion is because the nomination is procedural; the nominator explicitly says that he's neutral; and no specific reason to delete has been provided. AFD is not concerned exclusively with notability and notability is not even a policy; it's just a

1611:

Notability has nothing to do with censorship or protection against disinformation. I see no reason why anyone would want to censor this article. If people don't sell comics in a computer store, it doesn't mean that they are censoring them, just that they fall outside the scope of their store.

1980:

Our opinions may differ, Dominus. Knowledge (XXG) is strong mainly because it is detailed and comprehensive. I don't think we should include everything, but I will always support preservation of well developed articles on geographical topics. It's just my opinion. Please, respect it.

1440:

doesn't apply" and suggest that an non-notable road is somehow justified in an inappropriate amount of content completely out of sync with the attention reliable sources give the road. You're more then welcome to disagree with the policy, but this is not "my interpretation", it is

1301:

So your point is that because some information exists on Flat Bastion Road at the other article none should be merged? There is a large amount of information that does not exist in that article. Much of the History and Description section is not in the Streets in Gibraltar

935:, we shouldn't waste our time wikilawyering through all those WP links, though I could if I had to, believe me. My point for you is that you, yourself, seem content to work on other topics with marginal notability and of limited general interest such as linux distros like 837:, as I found just now. These have no special claim to fame but we cover them all regardless. It's much the same with all placenames and I regularly have success defending them here at AFD such as the recent rash of nominations of streets in Kansas City such as 2103:

A lot of coverage has been found, of all the notable things happening on that road and the things along it. I wish we had a proper guideline for roads, bridges, canals, and whatnot, since that would save of us the trouble of these reoccurring debates.

2437:. A phone book would create "way too much sourced content to be merged", that doesn't mean it's notable or appropriate. The article falls short of any of the notability guidelines; trivial mentions do not combine to create non-trivial coverage. - 1514:

is very clear about this: "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." You're trying over and over to say that

2614:

guideline for which exceptions and variations are expected. Your focus upon the question of notability is therefore excessive. And, in any case, it appears that the consensus is that the place is actually notable and meets the requirements of

1435:

says "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." you can't then turn around and say "But it's not a viewpoint so

1851:

neighborhood, ... just because we can find the information in a census, telephone guide, or other similar list. Not every bit of information that exists needs to be in an article. Comparing it to Wall Street is rather over the top.

2744:, particularly given the sourcing of the article and the age and size of the road (which means it is going to be written about alot overtime.) The article is well written, at least a "B" (and not the "C" it currently has). -- 2225:

I think he means "encyclopedic" which oftens goes hand in hand with "interesting historical knowledge". I agree with what Ipigott said about it now containing some quite interesting info and that great image of it in 1885 is

297:

Which references added do you think improve the notability issue of the article? Your merge argument was that it didn't contain significant independent coverage, has this changed? If so, which reference(s) changed this? -

183: 82: 2016:. All the attention given to this article has served to improve it substantially with lots of interesting new content. Far too much to include in the Gibraltar streets list. Now even more "notable" than before. -- 838: 2230:

and certainly more encyclopedic than previously. I don't think you can say the article is completely devoid, those historical accounts are of some value from my perspective, but I understand that you disagree.♦

2581:, which is kind of the entire point of the AfD discussion. You can say "notable" all day, but that's not how AfD is supposed to work. I've been asking for almost a month at the last AfD and the talk page for 2286:, do they? Notability isn't some arbitrary "I don't think this article is important enough" criteria, an article that lacks third-party reliable sources that can show this notability cannot properly adhere to 2488:

amount to significant coverage". The article is poorly sourced and does not meet any of the notability guidelines. The "keep" arguments apparently realize this, and choose to skirt around the issues

1063:

I'm aggressive because I can't stand editors who think all means are justified in keeping articles, including deliberately misusing sources (and policies) and lying. I'm not really hysterical though.

1285:. However, this discussion you're making would be appropriate for that article's AfD, which by the looks of that article will be soon. The point I was making was that there is no information in 2369:. per above. The article is certainly on par with the majority of other articles on roads considered as notable thus fullfilling our role as gazetteer. The extraordinary efford put into deleting 2294:

is fulfilled doesn't mean everything else can be thrown out of the window. If you believe that policies and guidelines are "out-of-touch", discuss it on the relevant talk pages. However,

1832:. There is now too much content for merge into an omnibus article. There have been past attempts to strip this article down to a discussion of today's physical road. That is wrong. Think 515:

Calling someone a liar is a blatant personal attack; a well-known breach of parliamentary procedure. The facts about this road seem fairly indisputable and so the context here is bizarre.

2705: 1811: 1791: 1466:

completely incorrect. The fact of the matter is, those are about a completely different type of things. But I wasn't thinking in those earlier examples. I had no reason to discuss

1218:

is a collection of overall topics that should be filled with whatever information we have." and that seems to identify your issue, what you're saying suggests that you believe that

1202:

Yes, because if something isn't listed as an example, it clearly falls outside of the scope and policy should be ignored. You believe that because this situation isn't given as an

2740:- I saw it was a Gibraltar article and immediately thought delete. I didn't find any sources, but one look at the article and there's no room to argue that the topic does not meet 136: 2508:

Like it or not, a large majority here disagrees with you. With all due respect, I suggest that it's time to stop flogging the dead horse and move on to something more productive.

1399:, your interpretation of it is such that further discussion on this issue is completely pointless because it would be impossible to come to any sort of mutual agreeable decision. 2207:. It is not censorship to remove topics that are inappropriate as encyclopedia articles. There are travel guide wikis that would be more appropriate for this sort of thing. - 1510:

to provide a disproportionate amount of information about a non-notable aspect of a topic, that's what the fourth paragraph says, the one you seem to be overlooking each time.

970: 2416:- Way too much sourced content to be merged into another article. The overall cumulative of coverage does qualify as significant and thus passing our notability guidelines. -- 2270:

exoskeletons) have become. Perhaps someone could let me know the outcome of this, because unwatching is the best way I know of to avoid the cringeworthy nature of this action.

77: 2601:" as a reason to keep it. That doesn't cut it, and notability cannot be skirted around or asserted without a single explanation as to how this notability somehow exists. - 177: 2242:

Thanks for that expansion, Dr. Blofeld, though I still think it's sad that Knowledge (XXG) is unable to tolerate the concept of non-abusive simple interest as legitimate.

1574:

article is clearly no disinformation but one can have doubts about its value for oneself. However, that must not be the yardstick for notability. Therefore, I vote keep.

609:. The size and available sources mean that it would likely need to be spun out again so while merge/speedy delete, no bias against recreation as independent article per 143: 1049:. I'm impressed by the work that Aymatth has done; it makes a decent stand-alone article now. A little less hysteria and aggressiveness from Fram would be helpful, too. 1868:, both per my comments at the last AfD, and procedurally, as the DR admin noted "no consensus" for a proposal to "restart from scratch" at AfD, and then did so anyway. 215: 1478:

is about a different subject entirely. It is about the neutrality of a topic. We aren't dealing with an issue of neutrality. That's what makes trying to apply

1334:

article that contain anything more than trivial mentions. To merge that much information into an article meant to contain every road would be inproportate and

2618:. Whether the coverage is trivial or not is essentially a matter of opinion rather than a mechanical rule. This is perhaps why notability is not a policy. 905:

both determine what is appropriate. I'm sure you believe your reasoning is grounded in these policies, but if they are you haven't explained why other than

1395:

that you are using to state that the sources aren't good enough is irrelevant because this isn't a neutrality issue. If this doesn't convince you that

698:

writing a self-standing article, there is nothing to prevent them doing so in the future. The article as it now stands will not be of any help to them.

809:

None of that is even remotely supported by WP policies, including the ones you cite. And your disruption argument is blatantly dishonest and uncivil.

1445:

how it is worded on the policy page. You cannot cherry-pick the policy and say that the parts you don't like are just someone's "interpretation". -

1012:, but not a single one of these are a third-party reliable source that describes the subject with any more than a trivial mention. The article fails 350: 551:

without damage. I think deleting it completely would not be productive and that the coverage which exists is at least worth a mention in a list.♦

1998: 1917: 109: 104: 113: 438:- a fundamental principle of law - that charges should be clearly stated so that prisoners are not kept indefinitely in limbo. See also 1884: 1338:

is what the Knowledge (XXG) policy exists for. You're welcome to disagree, but a core content policy cannot be so easily dismissed. -

2777: 2753: 2730: 2699: 2670: 2641: 2627: 2608: 2573: 2549: 2517: 2503: 2482: 2467: 2444: 2425: 2406: 2391: 2357: 2343: 2328: 2309: 2277: 2251: 2237: 2214: 2186: 2169: 2146: 2127: 2090: 2075: 2054: 2025: 2002: 1975: 1921: 1888: 1860: 1845: 1823: 1803: 1782: 1764: 1731: 1718: 1701: 1683: 1668: 1652: 1629: 1606: 1583: 1539: 1497: 1452: 1414: 1345: 1317: 1296: 1269: 1241: 1189: 1153: 1132: 1107: 1088: 1072: 1058: 1031: 980: 952: 920: 850: 818: 780: 758: 730: 707: 692: 678: 656: 630: 572: 557: 524: 508: 491: 469: 451: 411: 396: 367: 340: 305: 288: 260: 231: 96: 61: 2523: 1376: 1372: 1289:

that needs to be merged, because there is already information there about this subject, there is nothing that needs to be merged. -

1017: 17: 1246:

You are wrong. The other article is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is fulfilling Knowledge (XXG)'s role as a

2062:- Notable. Why are we pretending that this is anything other than the backlash to GibraltarpediA? The above comment with regard to 547:

I am content to have an article on the road but what information actually exists about the road I think can be fully summarized in

1612:

Similarly, notability is one of the guidelines and policies defining what is inside the scope of Knowledge (XXG), and what isn't (

2299: 1596: 198: 387:

and so a historic placename like this should remain a blue link. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing not deletion.

165: 1620:. Your !vote doesn't make much sense in that regard, and doesn't seem to be in line with what notability is actually about. 2298:. A phone book is also verifiable information; that alone is not a determination of what belongs on Knowledge (XXG), and 1363:

that biography a point of view that isn't neutral. Wait a second, neutral? Did I just mention neutral? Let's see where

647:

if any, historic significance. Notability is not inherited applies here. Not sure if there's even anything worth merging.

2796: 1616:

is another one). The current article has no obvious disinformation, and no need for any censoring, but still must meet

1591:

is not an indicator of encylopedic merit. When there are no third-party reliable sources, how can an article adhere to

714: 643: 40: 1648: 2192: 1994: 1913: 1275: 1223: 227: 159: 2682:: if even merge would be the first option considering the size of the article "Flat Bastion Road" appears to be a 2066:, "which itself is not likely to remain on Knowledge (XXG)," and the personal attacks make that abundantly clear. 1836:. There has been commentary on different events associated with this road for almost 200 years. It is notable. 2726: 1971: 1387:

is to maintain a neutral point of view. I'm sorry, but this is so far away from a discussion on neutrality that

814: 703: 652: 2489: 1939: 1423:(examples, last time I checked, are not definitive lists). You're selectively using the "viewpoints" aspect of 618: 586: 2623: 948: 846: 776: 726: 674: 520: 487: 447: 392: 2430: 1982: 1963: 1905: 155: 2769: 2634:

However, short of anyone specifically asking me something, I'll shut up and let the closing admin decide. -

2165: 1880: 1254:

an indiscriminate collection of information, specifically relating to the information that would be merged?

2578: 2535: 2454: 2295: 1947: 1689: 1168: 1163:

is a collection of overall topics that should be filled with whatever information we have. Information on

910: 740: 1644: 100: 2598: 2593:, and it's always dead silent on that front. Instead editors that believe the article belongs focus on " 2555: 2531: 2493: 1990: 1955: 1909: 1588: 1021: 1020:, and an article that cannot follow a core content policy has no place on Knowledge (XXG), no matter how 906: 744: 626: 594: 328: 205: 2792: 2665: 2477: 2232: 1778: 1760: 1713: 1678: 1102: 567: 552: 439: 223: 36: 1935: 894: 764: 718: 429: 683:

And here we go again... "the article was only created a few days ago."? 17 July 2012, or 85 days ago.

2749: 2722: 2687: 2566: 2473: 2387: 2353: 2324: 2157: 2063: 1967: 1904:. Verifiable and referenced geographical information. Deletion would be a disservice to our readers. 1901: 1752: 1640: 1579: 1490: 1407: 1310: 1262: 1251: 1215: 1182: 1160: 1125: 1041: 810: 699: 648: 548: 281: 253: 242: 2683: 2594: 1943: 1230:

given the very poor sources presented, there is nothing worth merging that is not already present.

622: 590: 2695: 2638: 2619: 2605: 2546: 2513: 2500: 2441: 2306: 2211: 2143: 1728: 1697: 1665: 1603: 1536: 1449: 1342: 1293: 1238: 1150: 1085: 1054: 1028: 977: 944: 917: 842: 834: 772: 755: 722: 670: 516: 483: 443: 388: 336: 302: 191: 2615: 1951: 324: 2763: 2463: 2421: 2274: 2161: 1871: 1841: 936: 2554:

Now you're really grasping at straws. A large majority of single-purpose accounts? Name one.

2283: 1595:? An article that cannot comply with a core content policy doesn't belong on Knowledge (XXG). 1516: 1511: 1503: 1479: 1475: 1471: 1462: 1458: 1437: 1432: 1428: 1424: 1396: 1392: 1388: 1384: 1368: 1364: 1355: 1351: 1323: 1279: 1231: 1227: 1219: 1207: 1143: 1138: 1113: 1078: 940: 902: 748: 736: 666: 614: 606: 383:" and so there is no case to answer. Knowledge (XXG) still has the function of a gazeteer per 171: 2247: 2182: 2071: 2021: 1819: 1799: 1708: 1331: 1286: 92: 67: 29:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

2791:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

2434: 2287: 1592: 1521: 1077:

There's already a section on this road in that article, and what's already there seems a bit

1009: 932: 886: 425: 35:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

2105: 1774: 1756: 1661:. If you think there are sources that the rest of us aren't aware of, please share them. - 2741: 2590: 2539: 2527: 2132: 1986: 1959: 1931: 1613: 1211: 1013: 928: 610: 602: 479: 2745: 2559: 2383: 2349: 2320: 2050: 1575: 1524:

to try to change this wording, but until then you're arguing against something the policy

1483: 1400: 1303: 1255: 1175: 1118: 274: 246: 56: 2711:

While the comments specify U.S. roads, it seems possible that European roads are similar.

833:. That's why, when you click random article, you often find obscure settlements such as 376: 1016:. Without such sources, the article has no third-party sources to keep the article in a 2691: 2635: 2602: 2543: 2509: 2497: 2496:

information, yet ignoring the fact that the notability of the subject is questioned. -

2438: 2435:

the sheer number of citations or external links has no effect on a subject's notability

2402: 2339: 2303: 2302:, especially when the article falls so critically short of any notability guideline. - 2208: 2140: 2086: 1856: 1725: 1693: 1662: 1625: 1600: 1533: 1446: 1419:

You're saying the policy doesn't apply, solely because it's not specifically listed as

1339: 1290: 1235: 1147: 1082: 1068: 1050: 1025: 974: 914: 752: 688: 504: 465: 407: 363: 332: 299: 2291: 2204: 2136: 1617: 1482:

so difficult in this case. Hopefully that clears up my point to you and anyone else.

962: 898: 890: 830: 768: 384: 355: 320: 2459: 2417: 2271: 1837: 434: 1354:

isn't meant for this situation. You are free to have a different interpretation of

2243: 2178: 2139:

and being notable aren't the same, trivial mentions do not establish notability. -

2067: 2017: 1815: 1795: 1520:

policy not your idea of what it should be. You're welcome to open a discussion at

1164: 130: 1989:, so you can take it as such (in this context). Btw, thanks for all the links. -- 717:

but that is just an essay and we require policy-based reasons here. Our actual

2449:

Those links are not to WP policies or even guidelines, but to bias essays. The

2300:

just because information exists doesn't mean Knowledge (XXG) is the place for it

1833: 1674: 2290:; being verifiable is required, but just because a basic mandatory thing like 2046: 53: 1146:

given the sources that exist in either article; there is nothing to merge. -

2398: 2335: 2082: 2042: 1852: 1621: 1247: 1064: 826: 684: 500: 461: 403: 359: 2033:– it was perfectly reasonable to bring the article to afd initially in its 1203: 2296:

you cannot decide that a policy or guideline does not apply to an article

2038: 1350:

I'm not dismissing the policy! I've explained to you multiple times how

747:

rationale, because those aren't reasons to keep an article any more than

482:. The thing is, we've had all this already and it's time to say enough. 1391:

isn't applicable in any way shape or form. Furthermore, any aspect of

839:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Southwest Boulevard (Kansas City)

2100:

Since its unusual renomination the article has undergone improvements.

1226:, already contains information on the road. What is there is already 1195: 566:

Thanks to the great work of Aymatth I think this meets requirements.♦

1657:

No, it doesn't, not by a long shot. No notability has been shown in

1081:

for the sources given. What are you suggesting there is to merge? -

885:

An article that has no third-party reliable sources cannot adhere to

1474:. As I pointed out in my last response, and you so easily ignored, 739:

as an argument to avoid, you probably shouldn't then reply with an

1461:

with you, but I'll clear up one thing. Initially, I was applying

1431:, the "aspects" part, that actually pertains to this content. If 2785:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

2536:

rather than discuss or even disagree with the lack of notability

1326:

comes into play. Per the lack of third-party reliable sources,

1117:

This is all part of a process called building an encyclopedia.

1755:, seems like the best way to present the information we have. 1220:

Knowledge (XXG) is an indiscriminate collection of information

1457:

I'm not going to continue arguing about the applicability of

2706:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/K-267 (Kansas highway)

2135:, and the article still fails to show any notability, being 1597:

The information doesn't need to be a Knowledge (XXG) article

381:

The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion

1377:

Knowledge (XXG):Neutral point of view#Achieving neutrality

1373:

Knowledge (XXG):Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight

2579:

Nobody has shown a single way that the article is notable

1692:

to see why your argument is not valid in this situation.

2037:

but it would be ludicrous to afd it now that it is both

245:. It doesn't contain significant independent coverage. 83:

Articles for deletion/Flat Bastion Road (2nd nomination)

2101: 2034: 1643:. Article shows enough notability for Knowledge (XXG). 1224:

which itself is not likely to remain on Knowledge (XXG)

126: 122: 118: 913:, and these arguments are not very convincing ones. - 190: 52:. Article appears to have been substantially improved 2472:

The typical articles on roads on wikipedia look like

829:

is well established by practise and policies such as

1210:? By all means, which sources do you think make it 1044:, which seems the most obvious home for the content. 1812:

list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions

1792:

list of Transportation-related deletion discussions

1532:articles on Knowledge (XXG), including this one. - 424:It is our policy that Knowledge (XXG) is neither a 204: 1283:is the very thing you're suggesting does not exist 721:tells us to preserve such useful building blocks. 713:and the nomination does not provide one. You cite 216:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2012 October 2 43:). No further edits should be made to this page. 2799:). No further edits should be made to this page. 2282:Yes, because anyone that doesn't agree with you 1101:That article hasn't been written properly yet!♦ 2712: 2556:And your blue links aren't getting you anywhere 1274:That the other article is "clearly notable" is 273:Per improvements by Aymatth2, otherwise merge. 1589:That someone might find the information useful 2156:-- This is a better option than merging with 973:. You should have looked a little deeper. - 763:My reasoning is grounded in policies such as 8: 2265:as per many others above, and the fact that 1810:Note: This debate has been included in the 1790:Note: This debate has been included in the 617:but at the end of the day, I think avoiding 2458:that altogether qualify as satisfactory. -- 1330:. There are no third-party sources in the 351:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Gibraltar/to do 2431:The large number of sources in the article 1809: 1789: 969:my interest area just because they exist, 2378:GibraldarpediA should really be put into 1234:applies whether you want it to or not. - 243:Streets in Gibraltar#Streets in Gibraltar 1222:. That is not the case. That article, 897:says to "Preserve appropriate content." 78:Articles for deletion/Flat Bastion Road 75: 1930:Wow, you really dredged the depths of 1528:says, and that policy that applies to 549:Streets in Gibraltar#Flat Bastion Road 18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion 7: 2433:does not mean it's a notable topic, 889:. Your reasoning is not grounded in 1375:. That section is a subsection of 74: 1427:as a means to dismiss the rest of 1014:the most basic notability criteria 971:including the one you linked above 24: 2382:to balance the dominance on DYK. 605:and merging in would actually be 2709:(01:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)) 1194: 939:. Please live and let live per 1707:than maps as sources. Why does 597:) 10:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 2374:criteria. The effort expended 1328:there is nothing worth merging 1112:Why on earth are you bringing 585:Per WP:ILOVEFRAM and avoiding 1: 2591:even the most basic guideline 2589:reference that would satisfy 1383:purpose of what is stated in 1214:? You said "An article like 218:. Procedural nomination, I'm 2778:16:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC) 2754:02:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC) 2731:17:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC) 2700:08:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC) 2671:10:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC) 2642:04:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC) 2628:10:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC) 2609:03:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC) 2574:03:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC) 2550:03:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC) 2540:the actual problem presented 2518:20:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC) 2504:18:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC) 2483:15:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC) 2468:02:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC) 2445:01:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC) 2426:01:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC) 2407:10:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC) 2392:09:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC) 2358:13:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC) 2344:10:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC) 2329:08:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC) 2310:22:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC) 2278:19:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC) 2252:11:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC) 2238:17:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC) 2215:16:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC) 2195:. It might be interesting ( 2187:15:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC) 2170:11:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC) 2147:16:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC) 2128:10:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC) 2091:10:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC) 2076:10:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC) 2055:10:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC) 2026:09:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC) 2003:10:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC) 1976:10:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC) 1922:09:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC) 1889:08:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC) 1861:07:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC) 1846:02:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC) 1824:00:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC) 1804:00:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC) 1783:00:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC) 1765:17:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 1732:18:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 1719:18:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 1702:17:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 1684:17:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 1669:16:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 1653:15:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 1630:14:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 1607:14:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 1599:to be useful information. - 1584:13:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 1540:01:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC) 1498:22:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 1453:19:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 1415:19:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 1346:19:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 1318:18:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 1297:18:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 1270:18:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 1242:18:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 1190:17:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 1154:16:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 1133:16:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 1108:15:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 1089:12:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 1073:11:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 1059:11:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 1032:11:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 981:04:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC) 953:08:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC) 921:11:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 851:08:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC) 825:Knowledge (XXG)'s role as a 819:11:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 781:11:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 759:11:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 751:is a reason to delete it. - 731:11:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 708:11:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 693:11:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 679:10:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 657:10:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 631:10:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC) 573:10:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC) 558:10:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 525:11:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 509:10:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 492:10:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 470:10:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 452:10:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 412:10:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 397:09:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 368:07:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 341:06:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 306:13:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC) 289:12:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC) 261:03:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 232:03:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC) 62:08:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC) 2490:by claiming it is important 2133:There is a proper guideline 354:for its scenery, ... Fails 2816: 2684:legitimate spinout article 2284:just doesn't see the truth 1137:I don't think you've read 621:should be the priority. -- 2599:how useful the article is 1773:per recent improvements. 1276:monumentally off the mark 1142:already there is already 2788:Please do not modify it. 2528:single-purpose accountss 735:If you're going to cite 32:Please do not modify it. 2380:creating other articles 1174:be undue in this case. 2717: 1769:Actually, changing to 1371:is otherwise known as 1324:Knowledge (XXG) policy 73:AfDs for this article: 2348:I rest my case... -- 1950:, all while ignoring 1169:Flat Bastion magazine 1018:neutral point of view 1010:has plenty of sources 440:Jarndyce and Jarndyce 2688:Streets in Gibraltar 2532:claim the usefulness 2474:Louisiana Highway 47 2158:Streets in Gibraltar 2064:Streets in Gibraltar 1902:Streets in Gibraltar 1753:Streets in Gibraltar 1677:confer notability?♦ 1641:Streets in Gibraltar 1502:The entire point of 1322:...and that's where 1252:Streets in Gibraltar 1216:Streets in Gibraltar 1161:Streets in Gibraltar 1042:Streets in Gibraltar 835:Calflax, California 2199:is interesting to 1958:and, most of all, 1673:Do the sources in 937:Parabola GNU/Linux 715:WP:Run of the mill 644:WP:Run of the mill 601:Believe it passes 478:And here come the 48:The result was 2776: 2771:(Gimme a message) 2710: 2193:WP:ITSINTERESTING 1966:here. Try again. 1962:. Don't see much 1946:and, apparently, 1826: 1806: 1709:Delaware Route 92 1645:Thine Antique Pen 1508:it is not neutral 1332:Flat Bastion Road 1287:Flat Bastion Road 961:So when you cite 93:Flat Bastion Road 68:Flat Bastion Road 2807: 2790: 2774: 2772: 2766: 2708: 2668: 2524:a large majority 2480: 2235: 2203:), but it isn't 2124: 2121: 2118: 2115: 2112: 2109: 1887: 1878: 1874: 1716: 1681: 1198: 1105: 570: 555: 480:personal attacks 209: 208: 194: 146: 134: 116: 59: 34: 2815: 2814: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2806: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2797:deletion review 2786: 2770: 2764: 2761:Per Carravone. 2723:Unscintillating 2666: 2534:of the article 2478: 2233: 2122: 2119: 2116: 2113: 2110: 2107: 1968:Dominus Vobisdu 1940:WP:ITSIMPORTANT 1876: 1870: 1869: 1714: 1679: 1367:is, shall we? 1103: 1024:it may seem. - 811:Dominus Vobisdu 700:Dominus Vobisdu 649:Dominus Vobisdu 619:WP:BATTLEGROUND 587:WP:BATTLEGROUND 568: 553: 545:Weak keep/merge 151: 142: 107: 91: 88: 71: 57: 41:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2813: 2811: 2802: 2801: 2781: 2780: 2756: 2734: 2733: 2719: 2718: 2704:Reposted from 2702: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2470: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2172: 2151: 2150: 2149: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2057: 2035:original state 2028: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 1983:WP:COMMONSENSE 1964:WP:COMMONSENSE 1925: 1924: 1906:WP:COMMONSENSE 1891: 1863: 1848: 1827: 1807: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1609: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1206:that it isn't 1156: 1110: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1075: 1034: 1008:- The article 1002: 1001: 1000: 999: 998: 997: 996: 995: 994: 993: 992: 991: 990: 989: 988: 987: 986: 985: 984: 983: 956: 955: 870: 869: 868: 867: 866: 865: 864: 863: 862: 861: 860: 859: 858: 857: 856: 855: 854: 853: 794: 793: 792: 791: 790: 789: 788: 787: 786: 785: 784: 783: 719:editing policy 695: 660: 659: 633: 579:Speedy delete: 575: 561: 540: 539: 538: 537: 536: 535: 534: 533: 532: 531: 530: 529: 528: 527: 495: 494: 473: 472: 455: 454: 417: 416: 415: 414: 370: 343: 313: 312: 311: 310: 309: 308: 292: 291: 265: 264: 214:Relisting per 212: 211: 148: 87: 86: 85: 80: 72: 70: 65: 46: 45: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2812: 2800: 2798: 2794: 2789: 2783: 2782: 2779: 2773: 2768: 2767: 2760: 2757: 2755: 2751: 2747: 2743: 2739: 2736: 2735: 2732: 2728: 2724: 2721: 2720: 2716: 2707: 2703: 2701: 2697: 2693: 2689: 2685: 2681: 2678: 2677: 2672: 2669: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2643: 2640: 2637: 2633: 2629: 2625: 2621: 2617: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2607: 2604: 2600: 2597:" reasons or 2596: 2592: 2588: 2585:to point out 2584: 2580: 2577: 2576: 2575: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2557: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2548: 2545: 2541: 2537: 2533: 2530:would rather 2529: 2525: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2515: 2511: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2502: 2499: 2495: 2491: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2481: 2475: 2471: 2469: 2465: 2461: 2456: 2455:WP:NOTABILITY 2452: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2443: 2440: 2436: 2432: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2423: 2419: 2415: 2412: 2408: 2404: 2400: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2389: 2385: 2381: 2377: 2372: 2368: 2365: 2359: 2355: 2351: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2341: 2337: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2326: 2322: 2318: 2315: 2311: 2308: 2305: 2301: 2297: 2293: 2289: 2285: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2276: 2273: 2268: 2264: 2261: 2260: 2253: 2249: 2245: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2236: 2229: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2216: 2213: 2210: 2206: 2202: 2198: 2194: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2184: 2180: 2176: 2173: 2171: 2167: 2163: 2162:Peterkingiron 2159: 2155: 2152: 2148: 2145: 2142: 2138: 2134: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2126: 2125: 2102: 2099: 2096: 2092: 2088: 2084: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2073: 2069: 2065: 2061: 2058: 2056: 2052: 2048: 2044: 2041:and entirely 2040: 2036: 2032: 2029: 2027: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2012: 2011: 2004: 2000: 1996: 1992: 1988: 1985:is a part of 1984: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1961: 1957: 1953: 1949: 1948:WP:EVERYTHING 1945: 1941: 1937: 1933: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1923: 1919: 1915: 1911: 1907: 1903: 1899: 1895: 1892: 1890: 1886: 1882: 1877:Pigsonthewing 1873: 1867: 1864: 1862: 1858: 1854: 1849: 1847: 1843: 1839: 1835: 1831: 1828: 1825: 1821: 1817: 1813: 1808: 1805: 1801: 1797: 1793: 1788: 1784: 1780: 1776: 1772: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1762: 1758: 1754: 1750: 1749: 1745: 1733: 1730: 1727: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1717: 1710: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1699: 1695: 1691: 1690:WP:OTHERSTUFF 1687: 1686: 1685: 1682: 1676: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1667: 1664: 1660: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1650: 1646: 1642: 1638: 1637:Keep or merge 1635: 1631: 1627: 1623: 1619: 1615: 1610: 1608: 1605: 1602: 1598: 1594: 1590: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1581: 1577: 1572: 1569: 1568: 1541: 1538: 1535: 1531: 1527: 1526:specificially 1523: 1518: 1513: 1509: 1505: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1481: 1477: 1473: 1469: 1464: 1460: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1451: 1448: 1444: 1439: 1434: 1430: 1426: 1422: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1398: 1394: 1390: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1374: 1370: 1366: 1361: 1358:, but you do 1357: 1353: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1344: 1341: 1337: 1333: 1329: 1325: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1295: 1292: 1288: 1284: 1281: 1277: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1253: 1249: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1240: 1237: 1233: 1229: 1225: 1221: 1217: 1213: 1209: 1205: 1201: 1197: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1173: 1170: 1166: 1162: 1157: 1155: 1152: 1149: 1145: 1140: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1115: 1111: 1109: 1106: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1090: 1087: 1084: 1080: 1076: 1074: 1070: 1066: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1048: 1045: 1043: 1039: 1035: 1033: 1030: 1027: 1023: 1019: 1015: 1011: 1007: 1004: 1003: 982: 979: 976: 972: 967: 964: 960: 959: 958: 957: 954: 950: 946: 942: 938: 934: 930: 926: 925: 924: 923: 922: 919: 916: 912: 911:WP:ARTICLEAGE 908: 904: 900: 896: 892: 888: 884: 883: 882: 881: 880: 879: 878: 877: 876: 875: 874: 873: 872: 871: 852: 848: 844: 840: 836: 832: 828: 824: 823: 822: 821: 820: 816: 812: 808: 807: 806: 805: 804: 803: 802: 801: 800: 799: 798: 797: 796: 795: 782: 778: 774: 770: 766: 762: 761: 760: 757: 754: 750: 746: 742: 741:WP:ARTICLEAGE 738: 734: 733: 732: 728: 724: 720: 716: 711: 710: 709: 705: 701: 696: 694: 690: 686: 682: 681: 680: 676: 672: 668: 664: 663: 662: 661: 658: 654: 650: 645: 641: 637: 634: 632: 628: 624: 620: 616: 612: 608: 604: 600: 596: 592: 588: 584: 581: 580: 576: 574: 571: 565: 562: 560: 559: 556: 550: 546: 542: 541: 526: 522: 518: 514: 513: 512: 511: 510: 506: 502: 497: 496: 493: 489: 485: 481: 477: 476: 475: 474: 471: 467: 463: 459: 458: 457: 456: 453: 449: 445: 441: 437: 436: 435:habeas corpus 431: 427: 423: 422: 421: 420: 419: 418: 413: 409: 405: 400: 399: 398: 394: 390: 386: 382: 378: 374: 371: 369: 365: 361: 357: 352: 347: 344: 342: 338: 334: 330: 326: 322: 318: 315: 314: 307: 304: 301: 296: 295: 294: 293: 290: 287: 286: 285: 280: 279: 278: 272: 269: 268: 267: 266: 263: 262: 259: 258: 257: 252: 251: 250: 244: 240: 236: 235: 234: 233: 229: 225: 221: 217: 207: 203: 200: 197: 193: 189: 185: 182: 179: 176: 173: 170: 167: 164: 161: 157: 154: 153:Find sources: 149: 145: 141: 138: 132: 128: 124: 120: 115: 111: 106: 102: 98: 94: 90: 89: 84: 81: 79: 76: 69: 66: 64: 63: 60: 55: 51: 44: 42: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 2787: 2784: 2762: 2758: 2737: 2713: 2679: 2586: 2582: 2568: 2567: 2561: 2560: 2450: 2413: 2379: 2375: 2370: 2366: 2316: 2266: 2262: 2227: 2200: 2196: 2174: 2153: 2106: 2097: 2059: 2030: 2013: 1956:WP:NOTTRAVEL 1897: 1893: 1885:Andy's edits 1881:Talk to Andy 1872:Andy Mabbett 1865: 1829: 1770: 1747: 1746: 1688:Please read 1659:any capacity 1658: 1636: 1570: 1529: 1525: 1507: 1492: 1491: 1485: 1484: 1467: 1442: 1420: 1409: 1408: 1402: 1401: 1380: 1359: 1335: 1327: 1312: 1311: 1305: 1304: 1282: 1264: 1263: 1257: 1256: 1199: 1184: 1183: 1177: 1176: 1171: 1165:Flat Bastion 1127: 1126: 1120: 1119: 1046: 1037: 1036: 1005: 965: 907:WP:ITSUSEFUL 893:at all, and 745:WP:ITSUSEFUL 639: 635: 598: 582: 578: 577: 563: 544: 543: 433: 380: 372: 345: 329:WP:OMGWTFBBQ 316: 283: 282: 276: 275: 270: 255: 254: 248: 247: 238: 237: 219: 213: 201: 195: 187: 180: 174: 168: 162: 152: 139: 49: 47: 31: 28: 2667:Dr. Blofeld 2538:, skirting 2479:Dr. Blofeld 2234:Dr. Blofeld 2228:interesting 2191:Please see 2039:embiggenned 1991:Vejvančický 1936:WP:ITEXISTS 1910:Vejvančický 1834:Wall Street 1775:Mark Arsten 1757:Mark Arsten 1715:Dr. Blofeld 1680:Dr. Blofeld 1675:Enzo Petito 1104:Dr. Blofeld 895:WP:PRESERVE 765:WP:PRESERVE 569:Dr. Blofeld 554:Dr. Blofeld 426:bureaucracy 373:Speedy Keep 178:free images 2765:Rcsprinter 2746:Uzma Gamal 2664:Promise?♦ 2595:procedural 2453:guideline 2384:Agathoclea 2350:Necrothesp 2321:Necrothesp 2267:verifiable 2197:everything 2137:verifiable 1944:WP:VALINFO 1576:CeesBakker 1421:an example 2793:talk page 2692:Cavarrone 2616:WP:SIGCOV 2510:Prioryman 2043:cromulent 1952:WP:NOTDIR 1816:• Gene93k 1796:• Gene93k 1694:Livewireo 1470:to apply 1302:article. 1248:gazetteer 1051:Prioryman 827:gazetteer 623:LauraHale 591:LauraHale 333:Rndomuser 325:WP:SIGCOV 224:T. Canens 37:talk page 2795:or in a 2587:a single 2460:Oakshade 2418:Oakshade 2272:GFHandel 1999:contribs 1918:contribs 1838:Aymatth2 1517:WP:UNDUE 1512:WP:UNDUE 1506:is that 1504:WP:UNDUE 1480:WP:UNDUE 1476:WP:UNDUE 1472:WP:UNDUE 1463:WP:UNDUE 1459:WP:UNDUE 1438:WP:UNDUE 1433:WP:UNDUE 1429:WP:UNDUE 1425:WP:UNDUE 1397:WP:UNDUE 1393:WP:UNDUE 1389:WP:UNDUE 1385:WP:UNDUE 1369:WP:UNDUE 1365:WP:UNDUE 1356:WP:UNDUE 1352:WP:UNDUE 1280:WP:UNDUE 1232:WP:UNDUE 1228:WP:UNDUE 1208:WP:UNDUE 1200:Facepalm 1144:WP:UNDUE 1139:WP:UNDUE 1114:WP:UNDUE 1079:WP:UNDUE 941:WP:SAUCE 903:WP:UNDUE 749:WP:GHITS 737:WP:GHITS 667:WP:GHITS 615:WP:UNDUE 607:WP:UNDUE 137:View log 39:or in a 2376:against 2288:WP:NPOV 2244:Opbeith 2205:notable 2201:someone 2179:Opbeith 2018:Ipigott 1593:WP:NPOV 1522:WP:NPOV 1443:exactly 1379:. The 1204:example 933:WP:BURO 887:WP:NPOV 499:forum. 319:- "per 220:neutral 184:WP refs 172:scholar 110:protect 105:history 2742:WP:GNG 2620:Warden 2583:anyone 2494:useful 2451:actual 1987:WP:IAR 1960:WP:GNG 1934:here: 1932:WP:ATA 1614:WP:NOT 1278:, and 1212:WP:DUE 1022:useful 1006:Delete 945:Warden 929:WP:OMG 843:Warden 773:Warden 723:Warden 671:Warden 636:Delete 611:WP:GNG 603:WP:GNG 583:Merge: 517:Warden 484:Warden 444:Warden 428:nor a 389:Warden 346:Delete 317:Delete 156:Google 114:delete 2686:from 2639:Ghost 2606:Ghost 2569:Vesey 2547:Ghost 2501:Ghost 2476:...♦ 2442:Ghost 2307:Ghost 2212:Ghost 2144:Ghost 2123:Focus 2047:Oculi 1898:merge 1748:Merge 1729:Ghost 1666:Ghost 1604:Ghost 1537:Ghost 1493:Vesey 1450:Ghost 1410:Vesey 1343:Ghost 1313:Vesey 1294:Ghost 1265:Vesey 1239:Ghost 1185:Vesey 1172:would 1151:Ghost 1128:Vesey 1086:Ghost 1038:Merge 1029:Ghost 978:Ghost 966:et al 918:Ghost 756:Ghost 640:merge 599:Note: 430:forum 377:WP:SK 303:Ghost 284:Vesey 256:Vesey 239:Merge 199:JSTOR 160:books 144:Stats 131:views 123:watch 119:links 16:< 2759:Keep 2750:talk 2738:Keep 2727:talk 2696:talk 2680:Keep 2636:Sudo 2624:talk 2603:Sudo 2562:Ryan 2544:Sudo 2542:. - 2522:No, 2514:talk 2498:Sudo 2464:talk 2439:Sudo 2422:talk 2414:Keep 2403:talk 2399:Fram 2388:talk 2371:this 2367:Keep 2354:talk 2340:talk 2336:Fram 2325:talk 2317:Keep 2304:Sudo 2292:WP:V 2263:Keep 2248:talk 2209:Sudo 2183:talk 2175:Keep 2166:talk 2154:Keep 2141:Sudo 2098:Keep 2087:talk 2083:Fram 2072:talk 2068:Anne 2060:Keep 2051:talk 2031:Keep 2022:talk 2014:Keep 1995:talk 1972:talk 1914:talk 1908:. -- 1894:Keep 1866:Keep 1857:talk 1853:Fram 1842:talk 1830:Keep 1820:talk 1800:talk 1779:talk 1771:keep 1761:talk 1726:Sudo 1698:talk 1663:Sudo 1649:talk 1626:talk 1622:Fram 1618:WP:N 1601:Sudo 1580:talk 1571:Keep 1534:Sudo 1486:Ryan 1447:Sudo 1403:Ryan 1381:only 1340:Sudo 1336:that 1306:Ryan 1291:Sudo 1258:Ryan 1236:Sudo 1178:Ryan 1148:Sudo 1121:Ryan 1083:Sudo 1069:talk 1065:Fram 1055:talk 1047:Keep 1026:Sudo 975:Sudo 963:WP:5 949:talk 931:and 927:Per 915:Sudo 909:and 901:and 899:WP:N 891:WP:5 847:talk 831:WP:5 815:talk 777:talk 769:WP:5 767:and 753:Sudo 727:talk 704:talk 689:talk 685:Fram 675:talk 665:Per 653:talk 627:talk 613:and 595:talk 589:. -- 564:Keep 521:talk 505:talk 501:Fram 488:talk 466:talk 462:Fram 448:talk 408:talk 404:Fram 393:talk 385:WP:5 375:per 364:talk 360:Fram 356:WP:N 337:talk 321:WP:N 300:Sudo 277:Ryan 271:Keep 249:Ryan 228:talk 192:FENS 166:news 127:logs 101:talk 97:edit 54:Wily 50:keep 2526:of 2492:or 1900:to 1896:or 1879:); 1751:to 1639:to 1530:all 1468:how 1360:not 1167:or 1040:to 743:or 638:or 379:, " 241:To 206:TWL 135:– ( 2752:) 2729:) 2698:) 2690:. 2626:) 2558:. 2516:) 2466:) 2424:) 2405:) 2390:) 2356:) 2342:) 2327:) 2250:) 2185:) 2168:) 2089:) 2074:) 2053:) 2045:. 2024:) 2001:) 1997:| 1974:) 1954:, 1942:, 1938:, 1920:) 1916:| 1883:; 1859:) 1844:) 1822:) 1814:. 1802:) 1794:. 1781:) 1763:) 1700:) 1651:) 1628:) 1582:) 1071:) 1057:) 951:) 943:. 849:) 817:) 779:) 771:. 729:) 706:) 691:) 677:) 655:) 629:) 523:) 507:) 490:) 468:) 450:) 442:. 410:) 395:) 366:) 358:. 339:) 327:, 323:, 230:) 222:. 186:) 129:| 125:| 121:| 117:| 112:| 108:| 103:| 99:| 2775:@ 2748:( 2725:( 2694:( 2622:( 2512:( 2462:( 2420:( 2401:( 2386:( 2352:( 2338:( 2323:( 2275:♬ 2246:( 2181:( 2164:( 2120:m 2117:a 2114:e 2111:r 2108:D 2085:( 2070:( 2049:( 2020:( 1993:( 1970:( 1912:( 1875:( 1855:( 1840:( 1818:( 1798:( 1777:( 1759:( 1696:( 1647:( 1624:( 1578:( 1067:( 1053:( 947:( 845:( 813:( 775:( 725:( 702:( 687:( 673:( 651:( 625:( 593:( 519:( 503:( 486:( 464:( 446:( 406:( 391:( 362:( 335:( 226:( 210:) 202:· 196:· 188:· 181:· 175:· 169:· 163:· 158:( 150:( 147:) 140:· 133:) 95:( 58:D

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Flat Bastion Road (2nd nomination) - Knowledge (XXG)

Index