Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exodus of the Spanish population of Gibraltar in 1704


 * 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   G7 by TexasAndroid, NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Exodus of the Spanish population of Gibraltar in 1704

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Obvious content fork, the article more or less duplicates material already in the History of Gibraltar. I'd personally recommend rather that any new material is merged into that article before deletion. Justin talk 12:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you noticed the underconstruction template? That's the reason why it currently duplicates the content of History of Gibraltar. The topic is encyclopedic and I didn't have a special interest in including it even under the scope of the Wikiproject Gibraltar (another wikipedist did it and even commented: "t seems to me that it could become a very interesting article"). It seems to me that this deletion is more related to the campaing you've begun against me that to any rational argument. As long as you just keep on reverting my editions with futile arguments, complain against me on the grounds of no neutrality... it seems to me just another element of harassment. If you don't feel it's necessary to wait until the article is finished before nominating it for deletion, feel free. I don't mind. I'll keep on working on it and include it whenever it is finished. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It was nominated purely because it is a collection of excerpts from another article and contrary to the tag at the top of the page no work had been done for a few days. Content forking is a valid reason for deletion but I don't have a problem with puting the AFD debate on hold for a while.  However, I am not prepared to tolerate anymore baseless accusations being levelled against me, there really is no excuse whatsoever for incivility.  You are the one to have broken WP:3RR and I'll remind you here that I chose not to make a report to avoid escalating tensions any further. There is no need whatsoever to raise the tension by indulging in personal attacks.  Justin talk 14:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, in the same way, I don't want to escalate tensions any further. I sincerely apologize for interpreting that reverting again and again my editions, removing my messages from your talk page, campaigning against me, allowing xenophobic messages again the Wikipedia I contribute most in your talk page without deletion or warning, filing a complain on me and eventually asking for deleting the articles I'm working on, was sort of crusade (as RedCoat name it below) against me. I don't know how I could have thought so. Sorry again --Ecemaml (talk) 16:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with the article at this moment. It has been tagged as under construction and still needs a lot of work. I personally think it is early days to consider deleting the article. Nevertheless, I strongly believe that considerable work should be carried out on it as soon as possible, rather than just leaving it as a collection of excerpts from an other article for any longer. --Gibmetal 77 talk 13:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a content fork of Spanish Gibraltarians and History of Gibraltar. According to Wikipedia, "Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies". The underconstruction tag has been in place for a number of days, and explicitly states "If this article has not been edited in several days, please remove this template". Unless the article can be expanded in line with Wikipedia's policies on citing verifiable, authoritative sources sources and asserting significance, my vote remains delete. RedCoat10 (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"Unless the article can be expanded in line with Wikipedia's policies on citing verifiable, authoritative sources sources and asserting significance, my vote remains delete". Have you sort of thelepatic power proving that the article won't be expanded in line with Wikipedia's policies on citing verifiable and authoritative sources sources? It seems a quite strange preemptive way to remove articles. --Ecemaml (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You have obviously misread my comment. I have never claimed the article won't be expanded in line with Wikipedia's policies on citing verifiable and authoritative sources. However, as it stands now, the article meets the relevant criteria for deletion. RedCoat10 (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the point is that your "vote" is Delete. I could have understood a personal message in my talk page. Sort of "the article, as is now, is a mere collection of excerpts... if you're not planning to expand it in the foreseeable future, it will be necessary to delete it". As long as I've been massively reverted, accused of massive POV edition, personally threatened... it's difficult to have time to work in articles. However, this time you win. --Ecemaml (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A message to that effect would have been contrary to Wikipedia's policy on consensus. WP:AFD provides for a forum in which the community as a whole can decide whether or not an article is worthy of inclusion, not me. It seems that whenever someone disagrees with you, instead of discussing it constructively, you simply attribute it to some nonexistent crusade against you. This is not a mindset that is conducive to reaching a consensus. RedCoat10 (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete As it seems that the deletion proposal has nothing to do with the article in itself, let Justin win his battle and remove the article. I've got a copy in my personal space and I'll go on writing the article without having to worry. --Ecemaml (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, CSD-A7 : the request of a sole contributor. Laudak (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a comment. I haven't asked it to be deleted "in good faith". --Ecemaml (talk) 16:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the phrasing of your vote makes me think otherwise: it was your conscious decision (and rather reasonable, I must say) to work on this article in your private namespace until it becomes good enough. In fact, this is exactly the way  quite often suggested for uncertain articles. Laudak (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You were right :-) --Ecemaml (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2008 (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.