Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birkin's Bend


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, per results of other related AFDs. Nakon 21:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Birkin's Bend

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable bend in a road. Any non-trivial info could be copied into Snaefell Mountain Course. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This is one of 10 related AFDs:


 * 1) Articles for deletion/Appledene
 * 2) Articles for deletion/Ballacrye Corner
 * 3) Articles for deletion/Ballagarey Corner, Isle of Man
 * 4) Articles for deletion/Birkin's Bend
 * 5) Articles for deletion/Brandish Corner
 * 6) Articles for deletion/Gooseneck, Isle of Man
 * 7) Articles for deletion/School House Corner
 * 8) Articles for deletion/Signpost Corner
 * 9) Articles for deletion/2nd Milestone
 * 10) Articles for deletion/26th Milestone


 * -- do ncr  am  20:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep The nomination proposes that we copy this information into another article and so deletion would be inappropriate as the edit history which we use as attribution would not be correctly maintained. Andrew D. (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge into Snaefell Mountain Course.  Rcsprinter123    (cajole)  @ 15:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The debate about keeping individual very well known places on the Isle of Man TT course and not moving them to the article about Snaefell Mountain Course can be found at deletion discussions for the Windy Corner, Isle of Man. agljones (talk)Agljones 15:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep No good coming from this, in terms of developing Wikipedia.  This appears to be, in effect, a bunch of separate merger proposals, when an RFC about possible merger (and perhaps mediation or dispute resolution help) would be better.  This is not likely to facilitate real discussion IMO, split 10 ways.  It should be noted that new AFD proposals are explicitly for copying material into Snaefell Mountain Course, while obviously either "Keep" or "Merge and Redirect" are the possible outcomes.  Outright deletion would not be justified.  This relates to a bunch of previous AFDs, too, including:
 * AFD: Articles for deletion/Windy Corner, (perhaps the most salient of a bunch) followed by
 * deletion review: Deletion review/Log/2014 November 27, followed by
 * RFC Talk:Windy Corner, Isle of Man
 * The RFC was never concluded, as far as I can tell...no judgment of any consensus. It seems to me that re-advertising/restarting an RFC, or better, getting some respected mediator to assist, would be better than hassling through more separate AFDs again. -- do  ncr  am  20:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 19:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The debate about the contents of the article of Snaefell Mountain Course and the issue of deleting non-notable articles and moving non-trivial information to the same article can be found at deletion discussions for the Windy Corner, Isle of Man. The rewritten and restyled Snaefell Mountain Course has been more successful and removing the problems of inaccurate information and plagiarism and the article has been translated into other languages.  Moving the non-trivial information would create an over-large and also unreadable article, repeating previous mistakes and some of the non-trivial but not all has already been paraphrased in the Snaefell Mountain Course article.  Many of the articles that have been subject to an AFD process can be seen as 'stand-alone' articles and Wikipedia frowns against orphan articles and as another editor observed that these articles about the Snaefell Mountain Course/Isle of Man TT/Manx Grand Prix fit together like pieces in a jigsaw. Wikipedia is an interactive and proactive process and provides encyclopaedic value and as I have previously stated, I am not against either reduction in the number of articles or a rationalisation process.  However, Wikipedia does suggest that there are other process to improve articles rather than repeatedly subjected articles to an AFD process when there is no issue of notability or no issue of original research.  Other articles have been deleted retrospectively without being subjected to the AFD process.  The problems of the same equivalent articles on Wikipedia Nederlands or Wikipedia Deutschland with issues of plagiarism have not been subjected to the same AFD process.  (talk)Agljones 17:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.