Talk:List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course/Archive 7

AFDs or otherwise deal with marginal articles on named corners
Several "named corner" articles have been noted to be fairly deficient of any substantive content, and these should probably be deleted entirely or redirected to corresponding rows in this list-article. As noted elsewhere, and paraphrasing: an editor has established a number of articles that fail basic Notability requirements. The subject of the Gob-ny-geay article, for example, is a roadside area with no junction or significant feature, and in fact very limited opportunity for race-spectator viewing, hence it is not much of interest in modern times. For this and several others there are scant sources providing anything besides one scholar's interpretation of a Manx-Gaelic language place name. What's required for Wikipedia article notability is substantial coverage specifically about a place.

How about a multi-AFD on several of them, but not more than about 5 because in my view the AFD process gets bogged down when there is too much for editors there to have to consider. Note, any redirect decision is a substantial decision and probably useful, but if an editor manages to acquire a bunch of photos and/or other material it is easy to re-establish an article, so there is not too much downside of a redirect decision. The items for a multi-AFD would be:
 * 2nd Milestone. No substantial content.  Not covered in this list-article.  To be deleted outright?
 * Gob-ny-Geay, which has recently been tagged for notability and there are more comments on its notability at Talk:Gob-ny-Geay. This has no substantial content.  Covered in this list-article with an interesting enough blurb currently.  To be redirected (that is the suggestion at its Talk page)?
 * Perhaps also Brandywell, Isle of Man, covered in this list-article. To be redirected?  The long article actually has no substantial content on Brandywell, and its Talk page has attracted long screeds.  This could be covered in the row item in this list-article, unless someone wants to develop it with different material, such as perhaps a set of good photos that would be more than a row here can handle.  I think it is best for this one to receive an AFD judgment of no merit currently, and to have it redirected for a while at least.
 * Keppel Gate, Isle of Man was recently mentioned, but I think there's enough specifically about the place for it to be kept as a separate article, right?
 * Any more? I am willing to open the AFD in a week or two or three, according to how discussion goes here. -- do  ncr  am  18:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've taken two/three months out of WP to avoid the appearance of WP:OWN}} and [[WP:WAR relating to my fair, neutral and accurate prose sourcednby industry experts at Keppel Gate being deleted again (I've lost count - two or three times} due to prejudice, bigotry, original research and information relating to road reconstruction that is inadmissable. Accordingly I've templated Keppel Gate as I see it, being corrupted as a continuation of using WP as a personal portal to promote the Isle of Man and to perpetuate the Manx Gaelic language by adding historic or further-back archaic alleged names into most or all of the articles this editor has created (also conscious that another may have created some of the articles). The list article was created in February 2015, and the first approach to the Teahouse was in March 2015 and the battlegrounding has never ceased, except temporarily.
 * Mather's Cross - delete outright, the content is already at North West 200
 * 2nd Milestone - delete outright, I cannot see this would ever be mentioned even briefly, certainly not written in multiple secondary sources "...he broke down at 2nd Milestone"? Nope, not needed.
 * Gob-ny-Geay - redirect to existing list inclusion
 * Brandywell, Isle of Man - redirect to existing list. I have historic sources for "Brandywell Cottage" as being 3.5 miles from the ::"Brandywell Road" junction. That revision with the image of hairpin bends adjacent to the cottage is outrageous - it's just a quaint local name, not verified as an area stretching miles away
 * Keppel Gate, Isle of Man - probably redirect to list, too much deliberate promotion of the Manx Gaelic language which is almost-totally irrelevant - most of the English speaking world would not even be able to pronounce, even if there was an agreed oral standard which I seriously doubt. We know from UK TV (guessing at 16 Feb 2017, there is a fuzzy Youtube capture worth a look just for the presenter) that it is being promoted in Manx schools (six minutes in), but these are not within the scope of WP, so do not need or justify this level of blatant overkill.
 * There are more I've not yet decided on - Gorse Lea, Ballagarraghyn, Appledene, Ballacobb, Orrisdale North, and Alpine Cottage (the latter from memory I think a prohibited area). I've done a couple of AfDs myself, and PRODs. After one such (restored, Gary Carswell) I made on-wiki contact with the widow of a deceased rider. In a faux-contrite unblock submission, an editor claimed to have been upset at the death of his school friend; at the talk page of the widow, she confirmed she didn't know the editor - they lived (then) less than a mile apart. I developed the article from the stub, and she provided an image. There was a previous un-PROD enquiry that was not followed up diff 1 of 2.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * (Some indenting done by me, in above comments, in this edit) There's nothing wrong with an editor asking a question or two or 20 at the teahouse, that is what it is for, i am glad they did ask questions there.  I think they got independent, professional responses that were overall helpful in all respects.  I think it's probably helpful to look at exchanges like that, and discussions elsewhere about a deceased rider, as semi-private ones usually best not cited, though the latter does give some perspective about having an article about that rider (which is okay by me, although there could be different opinions, but it is not a "named corner" place issue anyhow).
 * Two AFDs opened by me are now in process:
 * Articles for deletion/2nd Milestone (2nd nomination) and
 * Articles for deletion/Keppel Gate, Isle of Man
 * -- do ncr  am  16:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080102061804/http://www.motorcycledaily.com/20june06_ttspeed.htm to http://www.motorcycledaily.com/20june06_ttspeed.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Agljones (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Utter nonsense. Their removal was reverted by me.  User:Agljones is fully well aware of unanimous disagreement with their bizarre interpretation of copyright, with respect to a one-sentence explicit quote. -- do  ncr  am  02:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The request about this at "Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems" was closed on July 8 with note that the quote is clearly acceptable. -- do ncr  am  00:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

BRD Bold, Revert, Discuss
Trevor Kneale Citation The Kneale citation in the executive summary only uses the term “course” and not “Snaefell Mountain Course” and therefore cannot be used to support independent notability WP:N. The Kneale citation is not actually quoted in full, without the ISNB number, year of publication or full-title of book series and not pass the process of full attribution required by Wikipedia WP:V, WP:MOS. The Kneale citation is quoted in the second sentence in the paragraph refers only to the Isle of Man Tourist Trophy Festival and Isle of Man TT Mountain Course and is written in terms which are ambiguous and could refer to any event during the TT festival including the Pre-TT Classic Races and Post-TT races which are held on another circuit which are also part of the Isle of Man TT Festival. Also, the Kneale citation may be a reference to the non-racing event of “Mad Sunday” which is an unofficial, non-sanctioned event, a type of event particular to the Isle of Man TT Races. In comparison the article in the first sentence states;- “The Snaefell Mountain Course, a motor racing circuit” which is different to “….the course” and Isle of Man TT Festival and/or the Isle of Man TT Mountain Course in the full Kneale citation. Summary for the BRD process, the citation clearly fails the process of independent verifiability WP:V due to a Smoking Gun in a series of inaccuracies. Verifiability, not truth  agljones(talk)11:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Rubbish. The validity of the usage of the quote has been covered in other discussions, thoroughly.  Nothing new here. -- do  ncr  am  03:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * For the purpose of the BRD process and courtesy to other Wikipedia editors,  the posting of 03:30, 27th July 2017 by User:doncram has not formally identified the  “discussion” that the editor refers too and the relevance to this BRD discussion WP:BRD.


 * This BRD process WP:BRD refers to the Trevor Kneale Citation and if it can legitimately support the independent notability WP:N of the list-article. The summary for the BRD process, due to a series of factual errors, the Trevor Kneale citation does not pass the process of independent  verifiability, Verifiability, not truth required by Wikipedia.  This BRD  process also refers to the lack of full attribution for the same citation WP:V. Wikipedia editors should engage the process directly and in full. WP:BRD, WP:MOS agljones(talk)19:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you are attempting now, are you trying to generate fake news of factual errors, and generate confusion? There have been no factual errors. Nothing new, again.  Other discussions of the quote include the discussion section just above, and also at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems, in discussion closed by this diff.  That discussion included support for the idea of banning agljones from this topic area. -- do  ncr  am  20:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The editor User:doncram has not identified in full (only a diff) the “discussion” with edit 03:30, 27th July 2017  that the editor User:doncram refers too after being asking to do so, or identified the relevance to this BRD discussion and process.
 * The editor User:doncram has not identified in full (only a diff) the “discussion” with edit 03:30, 27th July 2017  that the editor User:doncram refers too after being asking to do so, or identified the relevance to this BRD discussion and process.


 * The comments made by editor user:doncram of 19:40, 8 August 2017 would suggest the use of a “laundry list” as previously described by an uninvolved editor User:Drmies and "supermarket shopping" as the editor refuses to identify in full the relevance of the “discussion.” For the BRD process summary there is no significance of the “discussion” as its "relevance" has not been disclosed in full.  agljones(talk)19:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)