Template:Did you know nominations/Devil's Gap Footpath
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 01:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Article was deleted at AfD.
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Devil's Gap Footpath
[edit]( )
- ... that a rocky outcrop at the top of the Devil's Gap Footpath in Gibraltar was once called the Punta del Diablo (Devil's Point) by the Spanish?
Created by Gibmetal77 (talk). Self nominated at 11:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC).
- Notification to reviewers
- Per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/GibraltarPediA Options, Gibraltar-related articles are temporarily being reviewed by two individuals. In addition to the regular DYK criteria, at least one reviewer should also indicate whether they perceive any conflict of interest or promotional concerns about the article under review. IP addresses and Victuallers are not allowed to do the reviews. When you have completed a review, please update the respective table below to change the background color to green and note that the review has been completed.
| First review required |
Article is new enough and long enough. Hook is short enough and interesting enough. However, the source for the hook fact (and the principal source for the entire article) is an on-site tourist "information display panel". While the article includes a photo of the panel, it is taken at a distance and the text is not legible. Not sure whether that is a sufficient source. Could the article author supply clarification on the author of the information panel and its contents? Also, an article on a footpath used by tourists for scenic views of Gibraltar could be viewed as promotional and therefore problematic in view of the Gibraltarpedia/DYK scandal. I would not decline based on the promotional element, but I do think additional, independent sourcing should be provided. Cbl62 (talk) 02:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
| Second review completed |
Length and newness are fine. The article is decently written and long enough. Sourcing is also fine; regarding the first reviewer's concerns about using an in-situ inscription, it's something I've done myself at featured article level (see Inner German border), so if it's good enough for FA it's certainly good enough for DYK. We wouldn't be able to accept a "legible" version of the inscription because that would raise copyright issues. I don't think there is any credible COI or promotional concern about this article; it defies common sense to suppose that someone might be inspired to go to Gibraltar just to visit a short-ish free-to-access nature trail. Prioryman (talk) 12:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Inner German border is a first-rate work on an important site. It's content is supported by over 100 reliable sources. Hardly precedent for using the content of an information panel on a footpath as the sole source for the majority of the article's content. Given the serious damage to Wikipedia from the Gibraltarpedia scandal (which is not even a year behind us), I do think additional, independent sourcing should be included. If that is done, I'm happy to take another look. Cbl62 (talk) 13:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Article: "Improvements included the widening of the path, clearing of shrubbery, drains cleared to enable water to divert off the rock rather than collect in a puddle, the addition of information display panels describing the flora and fauna in the area as well as historical facts, Barbary macaque-proof bins and a picnic table."
Source: "Improvements that have been made to the path include the widening of the path, the clearing of shrubbery, drains cleared to enable water to divert off the rock rather than collect in a puddle, information boxes which will display the flora and fauna in the area as well as some historic facts, Barbary macaque proof bins and a picnic area has been added to the top of the footpath."
Articles that violate copyright should never be at DYK. Whether the rest of the article is taken nearly straight from the information panel or not can not be checked, since no copy of the source is available for 99% of the editors here. Notability of the article is very dubious, the only (short and local) articles about the path are about the recent renovation, it doesn't even seem to be included in any tourist guides (which normally are happy to discuss scenic paths), older news articles, other books, ... 27 Google hits, No Google News archives hits, no Google Books hits: all that can be said about the path is said by the information boards alongside the path (hardly an independent source) and some very short newspaper articles and government announcements about the recent works on the path. If these are the most important features of Gibraltar left to document, then perhaps it is time to stop creating articles on Gibraltar and turn to the many other parts of the world that still don't have coverage of their major features, never mind small, insignificant but tourist-friendly footpaths (yes, it has a new picnic table, informing us of such things really is the purpose of an encyclopedia). Fram (talk) 13:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Fram's point on copyright is well-taken. That must be remedied. It also raises concern as to whether the information panel has also been too closely paraphrased or copied. Can the article author please address these concerns? Cbl62 (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- It looks like the author has addressed the close paraphrasing concerns. Fram's notability objection is not a viable reason to reject this or any other DYK, as it's not part of the DYK criteria. If he believes it's not sufficiently notable then it's his responsibility to take it to AFD; if there's no live AfD discussion then the review needs to proceed in the normal fashion. As for the information boards, the source is the Gibraltar Heritage Trust, a government-linked body which was partly responsible for the path's renovation, and the Gibraltar Ornithological & Natural History Society, the territory's natural conservation body. I would have absolutely no qualms about citing an English Heritage information board (and have done so in the past), and in the case of the Inner German border article I mentioned above, I quoted information boards from the Gedenkstätte Deutsche Teilung Marienborn (operator of the Helmstedt–Marienborn border crossing museum) in a featured article without any problems. There is absolutely no requirement anywhere in WP:V that a source must be "independent", only that it is reliable and authoritative, and it would be hard to argue that Gibraltar's official heritage body and its conservation body are not a reliable source for the heritage and natural history of Gibraltar. Prioryman (talk) 18:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Looking at the instructions for review in the edit notice, I read as a requirement that the article is "Within policy – meets core policies and guidelines". WP:N seems to be a "core guideline" to me. So it is, contrary to your explanation, a part of the DYK criteria. And for the sake of notability, the sources do have to be independent (and even for WP:V, the requirement is that "the article is not based primarily on such sources.", which is sadly the case here) I don't have any responsability to take it to AfD though, no one is responsible for such things, it is a volunteer effort. However, once you do take on a task like reviewing (and approving) an article for DYK, it was your responsability to ensure that there were no copyright problems. So perhaps don't lecture me about my responsability and look at what you neglected to do instead? Fram (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- There's a very simple point of policy here which you're neglecting. Notability is not determined by the views of a single editor. If you think the article is non-notable then take it to AfD. You don't get to impose a personal veto. That's why I said notability is not part of the DYK criteria. It's not a basis on which you are empowered to reject a DYK. Prioryman (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Looking at the instructions for review in the edit notice, I read as a requirement that the article is "Within policy – meets core policies and guidelines". WP:N seems to be a "core guideline" to me. So it is, contrary to your explanation, a part of the DYK criteria. And for the sake of notability, the sources do have to be independent (and even for WP:V, the requirement is that "the article is not based primarily on such sources.", which is sadly the case here) I don't have any responsability to take it to AfD though, no one is responsible for such things, it is a volunteer effort. However, once you do take on a task like reviewing (and approving) an article for DYK, it was your responsability to ensure that there were no copyright problems. So perhaps don't lecture me about my responsability and look at what you neglected to do instead? Fram (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- It looks like the author has addressed the close paraphrasing concerns. Fram's notability objection is not a viable reason to reject this or any other DYK, as it's not part of the DYK criteria. If he believes it's not sufficiently notable then it's his responsibility to take it to AFD; if there's no live AfD discussion then the review needs to proceed in the normal fashion. As for the information boards, the source is the Gibraltar Heritage Trust, a government-linked body which was partly responsible for the path's renovation, and the Gibraltar Ornithological & Natural History Society, the territory's natural conservation body. I would have absolutely no qualms about citing an English Heritage information board (and have done so in the past), and in the case of the Inner German border article I mentioned above, I quoted information boards from the Gedenkstätte Deutsche Teilung Marienborn (operator of the Helmstedt–Marienborn border crossing museum) in a featured article without any problems. There is absolutely no requirement anywhere in WP:V that a source must be "independent", only that it is reliable and authoritative, and it would be hard to argue that Gibraltar's official heritage body and its conservation body are not a reliable source for the heritage and natural history of Gibraltar. Prioryman (talk) 18:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Per the supplementary criteria, notability is an issue and unlike Prioryman said on the DYK talk page, an AfD is not required. An article can and should be rejected if notability is not shown in its current state. It is the nominator's responsibility to show the article's notability within the article for a main page appearance. SL93 (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Also, it is a requirement for sources to be independent per WP:N. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." SL93 (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- The subject of the article is a footpath. The footpath has not written the sources. Prioryman (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I hope that your comment is a joke. If not, that is strange. SL93 (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- No, it's not a joke, it's meant literally. You are misunderstanding what WP:N says. The subject of the article is the footpath. One of the sources for the article is a group of three authoritative bodies writing about the footpath, a topic which falls within their area of professional competence. This is not a situation where a source is being quoted to talk about itself. Since I see you wrote Sioux City Public Museum, let me put it in comparable terms; it's like citing the Sioux City Public Museum in an article about a particular artifact that it holds. Prioryman (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- It isn't though which I already said on the DYK talk page. Statements can be referenced to non-independent sources if the sources are reliable as well. However, the article itself needs more than independent coverage. SL93 (talk) 20:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- By the way, the source is not referencing an artifact. It is referencing that the museum has 10,000 square feet. SL93 (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I'm really confused by your reasoning here. The source comes from three authoritative bodies - the path's owner and its conservators. The path is the equivalent of an artifact - in this case a property in the care of the three bodies in question. How are these bodies in any way unreliable? As far as I can see they would quite plainly be the most reliable. Actually, I can't conceive of a source that would be more reliable. Prioryman (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- For notability, you need independent sources. "The path's owner and its conservators" are obviously not independent sources (and neither is the company that worked on the path). Which means that the independent sources which deal with the footpath are all local sources with short articles about the renovation of the path. Fram (talk) 06:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- The article has four independent news articles about the renovation of the path. The sources describing the path are from Gibraltar's government, national heritage and national conservation bodies - all impeccably reliable sources. Frankly, I don't think you would be making this argument if it wasn't a Gibraltar-related article - this feels like a pretext for obstruction. Prioryman (talk) 08:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well, it there were other cities that went to such absurd lengths to have all their minutiae recorded for posterity, then I'ld object to such things as well. But this seems to be the only small city in the world that gets this preferential treatment. Fram (talk) 09:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- If this survives the AFD, the question of notability here will be moot. Then we can continue with the nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- The article has four independent news articles about the renovation of the path. The sources describing the path are from Gibraltar's government, national heritage and national conservation bodies - all impeccably reliable sources. Frankly, I don't think you would be making this argument if it wasn't a Gibraltar-related article - this feels like a pretext for obstruction. Prioryman (talk) 08:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- For notability, you need independent sources. "The path's owner and its conservators" are obviously not independent sources (and neither is the company that worked on the path). Which means that the independent sources which deal with the footpath are all local sources with short articles about the renovation of the path. Fram (talk) 06:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I'm really confused by your reasoning here. The source comes from three authoritative bodies - the path's owner and its conservators. The path is the equivalent of an artifact - in this case a property in the care of the three bodies in question. How are these bodies in any way unreliable? As far as I can see they would quite plainly be the most reliable. Actually, I can't conceive of a source that would be more reliable. Prioryman (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- No, it's not a joke, it's meant literally. You are misunderstanding what WP:N says. The subject of the article is the footpath. One of the sources for the article is a group of three authoritative bodies writing about the footpath, a topic which falls within their area of professional competence. This is not a situation where a source is being quoted to talk about itself. Since I see you wrote Sioux City Public Museum, let me put it in comparable terms; it's like citing the Sioux City Public Museum in an article about a particular artifact that it holds. Prioryman (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I hope that your comment is a joke. If not, that is strange. SL93 (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- The subject of the article is a footpath. The footpath has not written the sources. Prioryman (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I feel like I'm in AfD...I'm done due to that reason. SL93 (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- As SL93 points out, DYK articles must follow Wikipedia's main content policies and guidelines, notability not excepted. If an article is notable enough for Wikipedia, it is notable enough for DYK (and other processes). Fram and others questioning the notability: rather than discuss this at DYK, which is not the proper venue, open an AFD, which is the proper venue, and establish a community consensus for notability. If it survives, this can be passed. If it doesn't, it will be failed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- On the other hand, experienced reviewers like Prioryman who apparently don't check for copyright violations and don't even seem to know that articles at DYK need to meet our notability guidelines probably should refrain from reviewing articles. 06:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have nominated this for deletion, all are welcome to join in. Fram, please do not continue your crusade against Prioryman here... WT:DYK is the spot to make such suggestions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- On the other hand, experienced reviewers like Prioryman who apparently don't check for copyright violations and don't even seem to know that articles at DYK need to meet our notability guidelines probably should refrain from reviewing articles. 06:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Note that apart from the other concerns, this article is for me tainted beyond repair for other reasons. The whole Gibraltarpedia restrictions were created to prevent the promotion of Gibraltar by its government and some Wikipedia editors helping them in this (for whatever reason), and the resulting flooding of DYK with Gibraltar-related articles. This article was simply created as a means to promote Gibraltar as a tourist attraction. The order in which things happen in Gibraltarpedia land: first you install the QR codes on the path that link to the future Wikipedia article, then you get a government employee to post pictures of the path and of the QR codes to Commons, later the same day a Gibraltar editor creates the article and afterwards proposes it for DYK, and another Gibraltarpedia/DYK regular approves it. No thanks... Fram (talk) 11:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- I note that there is, to date, no blanket rule against Gibraltarpedia/Gibraltar hooks. Until such time as there is, how you feel about the "tainting" should not affect this article's review, unless such concerns are backed up by shortcomings intrinsic to the article such as promotional language and/or cruft. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- There is no blanket rule for Gibraltarpedia hooks, there are rules against promotional and COI editing though. The article has plenty of shortcomings anyway, but even otherwise I would oppose this for the reason I gave above. I don't really care whether DYK has already a written rule against such misuse of it; it seems that those promoting articles don't really care about the DYK (or general Wikipedia) rules anyway, so why should we? DYK shouldn't be misused as a platform to promote entities, and this is a blatant case going beyond the usual Gibraltarpedia actions (or being less coy and circumspect about it). Anyway, if you want to play it by the rulebook (therefor ignoring supplementary rule D13), I'll just invoke supplementary rule F10. Fram (talk) 13:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- And F10 points to WP:ADVERTISING, which (#5) deals with elements intrinsic to an article ("objective and unbiased style, free of puffery") and notability, not whether a neutral and unbiased article on a notable subject was first written to advertise something. If this passes the AFD, and if more independent, third-party sources are shown, I have no objection to this. Failing it based on the presumption of advertising goes against DYK rules and WP:ADVERTISING, which you so kindly brought to support your case. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- "there are rules against promotional and COI editing though." WP:AGF implies that we should not assume bad faith on the part of the nominator, but look for evidence based on intrinsic elements in the article. Your "coincidence" is disturbing, but looking at external Wiki factors is not supported by the rules as currently written. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- There is more to WP:NOTADVERT than what you pointed out though: "Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so." What applies to Wikipedia as a whole, applies even more strongly to the main page. Using DYK and the main page as a forum to promote (or attempt to promote) Gibraltar should not be allowed, and if necessary this can be done perfectly using the existing DYK rules. Fram (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- "promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements" - Gibraltar is not a cause, event, or public service announcement. Aside from that, can you categorically prove that the nominator is promoting something or not? Otherwise AGF suggests we trust Gibmetal if the article can be shown to be neutral and on a notable topic. If you want to apply your interpretation of NOTADVERT, which would theoretically apply to all Gibraltarpedia articles, you and I both know know that the forum is not here, but here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Tourism in Gibraltar is a cause, and the explicit purpose of Gibraltarpedia and the QR tags. Whether the nominator is involved or duped or whatever is not relevant, we don't put articles on the main page because of their nominator, and not having a DYK is not a punishment. It is about the article and the circumstances surrounding the article, and this case is worse than most Gibraltarpedia articles, both in the circumstances and wrt notability. By the way, can I point out that your and others strict reading of DYK rules is contradicted by the lead paragraph of WP:DYK: "The DYK section publicizes new or expanded articles after an informal review." Strict application of the letter of rules is not "an informal review". Well, supporting an article can apparently be done informally, without much adherence to the rules, but rejecting an application isn't afforded that courtesy, no matter how many good reasons there are to do this. Fram (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Your comments make it clear that your opposition to this DYK is fundamentally about a policy issue which has been discussed and decided, and that your intervention here is basically a WP:POINTy attempt to disrupt a DYK on a topic that you're ideologically opposed to. Prioryman (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm ideologically opposed to footpaths in Gibraltar. They are an abomination. Do you have anything less desperate to say about my actual arguments? Fram (talk) 06:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. They're completely wrong, as my comments here make clear. But being completely wrong is to be expected when your actual arguments are based on totally erroneous premises. Prioryman (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm ideologically opposed to footpaths in Gibraltar. They are an abomination. Do you have anything less desperate to say about my actual arguments? Fram (talk) 06:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Your comments make it clear that your opposition to this DYK is fundamentally about a policy issue which has been discussed and decided, and that your intervention here is basically a WP:POINTy attempt to disrupt a DYK on a topic that you're ideologically opposed to. Prioryman (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- Tourism in Gibraltar is a cause, and the explicit purpose of Gibraltarpedia and the QR tags. Whether the nominator is involved or duped or whatever is not relevant, we don't put articles on the main page because of their nominator, and not having a DYK is not a punishment. It is about the article and the circumstances surrounding the article, and this case is worse than most Gibraltarpedia articles, both in the circumstances and wrt notability. By the way, can I point out that your and others strict reading of DYK rules is contradicted by the lead paragraph of WP:DYK: "The DYK section publicizes new or expanded articles after an informal review." Strict application of the letter of rules is not "an informal review". Well, supporting an article can apparently be done informally, without much adherence to the rules, but rejecting an application isn't afforded that courtesy, no matter how many good reasons there are to do this. Fram (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- "promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements" - Gibraltar is not a cause, event, or public service announcement. Aside from that, can you categorically prove that the nominator is promoting something or not? Otherwise AGF suggests we trust Gibmetal if the article can be shown to be neutral and on a notable topic. If you want to apply your interpretation of NOTADVERT, which would theoretically apply to all Gibraltarpedia articles, you and I both know know that the forum is not here, but here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- There is more to WP:NOTADVERT than what you pointed out though: "Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so." What applies to Wikipedia as a whole, applies even more strongly to the main page. Using DYK and the main page as a forum to promote (or attempt to promote) Gibraltar should not be allowed, and if necessary this can be done perfectly using the existing DYK rules. Fram (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- There is no blanket rule for Gibraltarpedia hooks, there are rules against promotional and COI editing though. The article has plenty of shortcomings anyway, but even otherwise I would oppose this for the reason I gave above. I don't really care whether DYK has already a written rule against such misuse of it; it seems that those promoting articles don't really care about the DYK (or general Wikipedia) rules anyway, so why should we? DYK shouldn't be misused as a platform to promote entities, and this is a blatant case going beyond the usual Gibraltarpedia actions (or being less coy and circumspect about it). Anyway, if you want to play it by the rulebook (therefor ignoring supplementary rule D13), I'll just invoke supplementary rule F10. Fram (talk) 13:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Result of AfD was delete. Closing DYK nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)