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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course[edit]

List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has no Notability. WP:NP and duplicates / contradicts information in the Snaefell Mountain Course article. The issue of independent notability has not been addressed in the Executive Summary. There is an issue plagiarism / Original Research WP:OR as the facts in the list as it has been reproduced without attributing it to its source. WP:INTEGRITY. agljones(talk)14:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Only 8 results show up on google, notability is not there. Jdcomix (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, obviously. Numerous sources in article discuss the collection of named corners. There are 45 named corners that are apparently Wikipedia-notable (because they have articles), many started by the deletion monitor and by their sock puppet(s). 45 despite some having been deleted. The list-article serves good purpose of providing good redirect targets for those, and good purpose of avoiding need for creation of any more marginal articles. See 5!!! Archives of the article's Talk page to see deletion nominators objections a year or 2 or 3 ago. The main one I recall is they wished to preserve or create more marginal articles with no more info than is carried in those corners' rows here. --doncram 21:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Bad faith disruptive nomination. Agljones is an unblocked Sockmeister who has serially engaged in OWNership of Isle of Man and TT races articles, partisan censorship of Wikipedia, deletion of content and editwarring, all within a notional 95% singular-topic area. First suspected as a COI editor by myself in May 2014 (purposely written into edit-summary after repeated deletions), I further established substantial COIs after the unblock of July 2015. Identified IRL through Wikipedia content, Agljones is self-identified in many image uploads with formal (given) name. Requests for COI declaration(s) were ignored, instead trying to intimidate me with oversight and sending private emails complaining about me. Three involved-admins (two from unblock, one 'crat) were placed on notice to be available to address any future (expected) problems. Requests made to Agljones to cease contributing to the topic area have been partially complied with, excepting flurries of confrontational activity, such as those of Xmas 2015 and this. Further suspicious usernames and IP addresses (the latter in direct violation of unblock conditions/agreement) have been identified and recorded.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article was established by doncram after a bulk-listed series of AfDs during late 2014/early 2015, nominated by one editor supermarket shopping, going through two templates listing inter-related articles on an historic, circuitous, motorcycle racing course, leaving gaps in the Wikipedia coverage by design, instead of opening dialogues and trying to work with editors to improve article content. The same editor was responsible for deleting one of the two templates. I have substantially contributed to this article (and others in the sequence) in good faith that it would endure. Wherever possible, extensive attempts to provide photographic enhancements to substantiate content have been sought, often requiring canvassing of, and interactions with, Flickr users who were willing to contribute to Wikipedia by changing Creative Commons licenses, also expecting their contributions to endure for posterity.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I fail to see the nominator's logic. The corners exist. They are named. They are part of a logical set. Well sourced articles exist. Why delete it?? Contradictory information should be sorted, not treated with wholesale deletion. - Brianhe (talk) 09:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The issue of notability WP:NP still not been resolved and duplicates / contradicts information in the Snaefell Mountain Course article and other articles in the Isle of Man motor-cycling network. There is an issue plagiarism / Original Research WP:OR as the facts in the list as it has been reproduced without attributing it to its source which is required by Wikipedia.

This is not a bad faith/disruptive nomination as the rules of independent notability have to be adhered to in Wikipedia. In the deletion procedure it is stated by Wikipedia not to make personal comments. The editor doncram, has previously until the 11th May 2016 had a general sanction ban which still applies to the National Register of Historic Places. Rather as the editor doncram has previously stated that the list provides “…..good purpose of providing good redirect targets for those, and good purpose of avoiding need for creation of any more marginal articles…” The editor doncram while still under the general sanction has repeatedly redirected articles to the list after issues of notability have been resolved and repeatedly forcing his opinion on other editors, an issue that led to general sanctions previously being applied, in this list article and other articles in the Isle of Man motor-cycling network of articles. The editor doncram, has also during the same period before the general sanctions has removed and deleted an edit made in good faith, used the same information in the same list article that has been requested to be deleted and then later restored the information in the original edit. The editor doncram, has also redirected an article to the list and the asked Wikipedia to un-delete a previous version of the article and then restored the previous text used by the editor Rocknrollmancer.

This would suggest as Wikipedia would describe as Meatpuppetry between the two editors that sometimes occurs between new and inexperienced editors. Both the editor’s doncram and Rocknrollmancer have both quickly replied to the deletion request and both in the same manner in making personal comments and concentrating on sock puppetry. There is no outstanding Sockpuppetry investigation by either editor and the previous investigation was successfully appealed after 1 month. It is required by Wikipedia that both editors ‘move on’ after the previous Sockpuppetry investigation and it has been explained before that the Isle of Man motor-cycle network of articles are subject to a higher number of edits compared to other Wikipedia article areas made by unregistered Wikipedia editors making edit using mobile phones.

Again, this is not a bad faith / disruptive nomination and the editor Rocknrollmancer as repeatedly been asked not to make personal comments or by his own admission use made-up 'pseudo-Wikipedia' terms. The issue of CoI allegedly identified by the editor Rocknrollmancer in May 2014 is unsubstantiated. Wikipedia is very clear on the issue and the place of residence of an editor is not sufficient to make any type of CoI declaration or use CoI as a "trump card." The issues of “….partisan censorship of Wikipedia, deletion of content and editwarring…” are all unsubstantiated as there is a difference between editing on just one single article (there is also no issue of paid advocacy) and editing in a series of linked articles. Also, “within a notional 95% singular-topic area” as the editor Rocknrollmancer refers too, perhaps more than 75 percent of the edits have involved transposing sports results from one source to a Wikipedia article and there is no issue of CoI. There is no issue of Conflict of Interest in this nomination for deletion as the list article refers to only geographical names. Again, the geographic features brought together in this list that has been reproduced without attributing it to its source which is required by Wikipedia and there are also issues of Original Research WP:OR.

It is a requirement by Wikipedia that any editor asking for a Conflict of Interest declaration of another editor must make it clear that it is a voluntary process only and that privacy issues of any editor over-ride any CoI request / deceleration. The editor Rocknrollmancer has not followed this process and by the editors own admission made a series of “bad faith” edits and engaged in 'outing' tactics. The Wikipedia English Oversight Committee has investigated the matter and there is no formal connection on Wikipedia between the edits that the editor Rocknrollmancer refers too and my own personal Wikipedia editor history. The “….oversight and sending private emails complaining…” was initiated by the editor Rocknrollmancer after in by the editors own admission an edit described by the user Rocknrollmancer as “BS” and engaging in editing in "bad faith" and using 'outing tactics.' The editor Rocknrollmancer has failed to make clear that after initiating the CoI request that the editor Rocknrollmancer was asked to delete immediately the edit as there was a privacy issue. The same page was registered with the Wikipedia English Oversight Committee which required any editor to inform the Oversight Committee and immediately redact the edit which the editor Rocknrollmancer has not complied with. In respect to private emails there has been off-Wiki contact between the two editors doncram and Rocknrollmancer.

There has been an issue with the editor Rocknrollmancer and also the editor doncram with deleting good faith edits while I was an editor blocked subject to the Sockpuppetry investigation which is not permitted by Wikipedia. The editor Rocknrollmancer has used the edit summary to make comments and bypass any potential BRD discussion on the appropriate talk page if the edit is controversial. The edits made by the editor Rocknrollmancer include including false information without any citation, using unreliable sources WP:NOTRELIABLE , issues of direct and indirect bias (including subject an article to speedy deletion relating to the controversial aspect referred to in the BRD) and failing to address the issue of article (independent) notability. WP:N The editor Rocknrollmancer has the opportunity to use the BRD discussion, but has chosen not to do so. The editor Rocknrollmancer by his own admission admitted to breaching the Wikipedia rules in respect photo content, placement and size.

To summarize, the editor doncram has repeatedly used the process of article redirects to force his editing opinions on the list article. The information is often incorrect and after ‘stonewalling’ the editor doncram has refused to make changes. The issue of notability has not been resolved and the list does not allow or editors to expand the articles that are redirected. The editor doncram on the talk:page has repeatedly hatted and top-hatted comments, there have been unexplained text collapses and repeatedly asked not to break-up the comments and then again broken-up the talk-page discussion and then unnecessarily archived the comments. The editor doncram has also in another related Isle of Man motor-cycling article has again unnecessarily archived a talk-page discussion which relates to a controversial area in a later subsequent BRD discussion. The responsibility of adding or deleting information lies with the editor and false information, "BS" and "outing" is not permissible. The list article has been misused and the issue of article independent) notability has not been addressed and the edit history and talk:page discussion show that the editor doncram has repeatedly tried to move the article into other areas which conflict/contradict other articles in the Isle of Man motor-cycling network. agljones(talk)11:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Deletion process. It is part of the deletion process that no personal comments to be made or use made-up ‘pseudo-Wikipedia’ terms in the deletion process or use personal comments in other articles including talk:pages and the edit summary boxes. In respect the allegations in respect to sock puppetry, either redact the comments in the deletion process or immediately instigate a sock puppetry investigation.

It is permissible during the deletion process to edit the article subjected to deletion. However, as the article subject to deletion due to the issue of independent notability WP:N and also duplicating/contradicting other articles in the network, any editor that has commented on the deletion process should not then use the opportunity for “edit warring,” redirect articles and restore spurious deleted information and not address the issue of the articles independent notability WP:N. Also, the issue of the “creative” process in the selection of the list items in the list article is required to be resolved by Wikipedia with an appropriate citation and also resolve the issue of independent articles for each list item.

agljones(talk)20:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to the challenge to redact or to support mention of sockpuppeting: I referred somewhere above to articles on named corners having been created by editor Agljones and/or sockpuppet(s). Agljones is fully aware of their having been found to operate sockpuppet account User:11thmilestone, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Agljones/Archive. The sockpuppet 11thmilestone's contribution history shows they edited at numerous "named corner" articles and created Talk pages for several of them, but in fact, contrary to my recollection, I do not see their having created any of the named corner articles directly. So while my wording that many of the named corners were created by Agljones and/or sockpuppets is technically correct, it was not necessary for me to conjure up the sockpuppeting.

I do agree that repeated mentions of the past sockpuppeting is not helpful, and I will go further to ask editor User:Rocknrollmancer also to dial that back. RnR's edit summary in this edit was not necessary. It is bizarre that Agljones seems possibly to want to deny having sockpuppeted, and it would be over quicker if they would just acknowledge it and ask to move on, rather than running on without any admission. In my view (which doesn't matter greatly), Agljones' recent involvement in this area does not seem constructive to me (at least this AFD demanding other editors' attention seems costly and non-constructive), but the past sockpuppeting was addressed by a six month block which concluded and they are no longer blocked or banned. This thread is off-topic in this AFD and I prefer followup at user Talk pages instead. --doncram 20:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is required that that the comments about sock – puppetry to be redact the comments in the deletion process or immediately instigate a sock puppetry investigation. Other editors and administrators will only assume that the issue brought-up by editors User:Rocknrollmancer and User:doncram are trying to deflect criticism away from the deletion process about the list article having not addressed the issue of a) Independent notability, b) a citation for the ‘creative issues’ for the selection of the list items and c) the need for each list item to have an independent article.

The suggestion of sock-puppetry/bad faith nomination/disruptive editor is the only issue here which is substantially off-topic. This is confirmed by the comment by the editor User:doncram with the above comment “….I do agree that repeated mentions of the past sockpuppeting is not helpful, and I will go further to ask editor User:Rocknrollmancer also to dial that back.” Both editors User:Rocknrollmancer and User:doncram commented extensively on the sock – puppetry investigation, both before and after the successfully appeal after ONE MONTH (not six months and it should have been a shorter period due the slow and inept Wikipedia process) which included comments by both of these editors about bias, conflict of interest and accusations of bullying. The appeal was successful due to Wikipedia administrators not adhering to the rules and procedure and the excessive campaigning and team-tagging by the editors User:Rocknrollmancer and User:doncram. The suggestion that asking the User:Rocknrollmancer to “….dial that back…,” is a tacit admission along with the excessive campaigning and team-tagging that the editors the User:Rocknrollmancer and User:doncram are acting as meat-puppets which is in itself a form of sock-puppetry. Linking the creation of articles to other editors in the period 2006-2008 should not be described as sock-puppetry and should be also be redacted or immediately instigate a sock puppetry investigation.

Neither should any suggest of any further evidence of sock-puppetry per se be included as it is now more common for edits being made on Wikipedia without using a login name on mobile phone or other devices and this has also been brought to the attention of User:Rocknrollmancer and User:doncram and these undisclosed edits should not be used as further evidence of currently being a ‘sock-puppet.’ Also, the comments made by the editors User:Rocknrollmancer and User:doncram in the sock – puppetry investigation suggested that I had acted as a sock – puppet since the year 2000. I stated that I had “ …used….” Wikipedia since 2000-2001, the use of informal written English in the context of reading articles only. It is not reasonable for any Wikipedia editor of being accused of being a “ sock- puppet “ for reading any article on Wikipedia since the year 2000. Both editors User:Rocknrollmancer and User:doncram are not aware that due to ITIP conflicts and Wikipedia being by the standards of the day, an inexcusable and abysmal website to interact with (compared to eBay.com)and during the period of 2000-2004, it was completely impossible to either register a user name or make any type of edits. The other editors that created articles have not been subject to the same sock – puppetry investigation and therefore the explanation by editor User:doncram is incorrect.

Although it is unclear, I had to create a second user name in 2009 to access a now defunct Wikipedia street and map-making application for Wikipedia. As the editor User:doncram also mentions the second name was dominant for a long period of time (years), not used to create any articles which conflict with this deletion request and after reactivation in 2015, I had made a genuine attempt not to use another editor name. Also, as the comments made by the editors User:Rocknrollmancer and User:doncram in the sock–puppetry investigation, include making allegations of bias and editing a single article use. The article history of the Isle of Man TT article shows that the article was not created until 2002 and did not exists in its current form until 2005. I was only able to register an editor name with Wikipedia in 2006 due to Wikipedia being such an abysmal website (with internal structural problems) only after including personal details not required by the English Wikipedia Oversight Committee and the allegations of promotional activities by the editor User:Rocknrollmancer is factious and incorrect.

The comments made during and after the sock – puppetry investigation by the editors User:Rocknrollmancer and User:doncram including issues of ‘self-promotion’ which is a result of technical problems with registration with Wikipedia in 2006. Further issues made during and after the sock – puppetry investigation by the editors User:Rocknrollmancer and User:doncram include that of bias and single area/article use. This is contradicted by the editor User:Rocknrollmancer in the above submission to this article deletion request which suggests a 95 percent network area which is substantially different to a single article use. Also, the editor history also shows that rather than allegations of bias, article ownership and single article use, as I have stated previously more than 75 percent of edits have concentrated on transposing sports result from one source to a Wikipedia article and there is no issue here of bias, conflict of issue, article ownership and single article use as mentioned in the sock – puppetry investigation by the editors User:Rocknrollmancer and User:doncram.

It is a requirement of Wikipedia that editors “....move-on...” and which the editor User:doncram should understand this after serving a general ban and placed under a lengthy probation (3 years) which ended on the 11th May 2016. However, the editor User:doncram has still a topic ban against editing the list article National register of US Historic Places. This is far more pertinent and relates and the previous general ban which could be reactivated if the editor User:doncram “…. repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behaviour and decorum.” During this period, the editor User:doncram as mentioned above, deleted good faith edits while I was appealing the sock – puppetry ban, used in the same information in this list article which is requested to be deleted and then later restored the same information. The editor User:doncram deleted this article for the Ginger Hall and then asked Wikipedia to un-delete a previous version of the article and then edited the article to restore the text of version supported by the editor User:Rocknrollmancer

The user User:Rocknrollmancer has then edited another good faith edit for the article Isle of Man TT while I was while I was appealing the sock – puppetry ban and the editor User:Rocknrollmancer revised and failed to address the issue of independent notability WP:N and used a number of unreliable and biased citations and significantly by-passed any issues that could be discussed on the talk:page or initiating a BRD discussion by using the edit summary box. This relates to the deletion request for this list article as stated above by the user User:Rocknrollmancer and has used the sock – puppetry investigation to continue to make personal comments and allegations of bias, conflict of issue and article/area ownership. In respect of the Isle of Man TT, there is no conflict of issue, as Wikipedia does not allow CoI issues to be used as a trump card, I do not own any company or own/work for any company involved with the Isle of Man TT races and as Wikipedia states, that privacy issues override any CoI request and any declaration made is completely voluntary. The business rights of the Isle of Man TT races are owned by the Auto-Cycle Union, the company ACU Events Ltd manages the race organisation and the company Vision Nine Group from February 2016 is the official promoter. In respect to the issue of bias as mentioned in the sock – puppetry investigation, User:Rocknrollmancer has made allegations of editing on Wikipedia as “…. a controlling, complete reprobate, a partisan, pro-Manx editor who does not intend to allow neutrality which could show the IoM (Isle of Man) in a bad light.” [1] This edit [[2]] shows that I have made in respect to the Isle of Man TT Signature Sponsorship TV deal for the period 2006-2009 and this edit [[3]] in respect to the illegal loan scheme by the Manx Electricity Scheme Authority shows an exceptional proactive stance to editing which should be welcomed by Wikipedia and the allegations of bias, conflict of issue and single article/single area ownership made by the editor User:Rocknrollmancer are pathetic, completely false and unsubstantiated

After, addressing the issue of independent notability and ownership of the Isle of Man TT races and instigating a BRD conversation on the talk:page, the editors User:Rocknrollmancer and User:doncram have failed to engage in that discussion. The editor User:doncram has failed to engage in the BRD at the talk:page for the Keppel Gate article which appears a list item on the list and again used the edit summary box to by-pass any discussion. The editor User:doncram has repeatedly not addressed issues of independent notability WP:N with the Keppel Gate article, used an unreliable source with an undisclosed photograph of an unrelated area (?), with issues of being promotional and plagiarism which cannot be substantiated by any other citation after spending more than six months research time reading contemporary newspaper sources. Another article on the list is the Windy Corner article has been again been redirected by the editor User:doncram despite there being no consensus on deletion or redirection. The talk:pages of the Windy Corner article contain a discussion about independent notability WP:N which the editor User:doncram has also made comments and is familiar with this issue. In respect to talk:page discussion the editor User:doncram has made the comments on the Isle of Man TT page that the races are the most dangerous race because “...it is so...” and then archived an discussion on safety issues. In respect to the article Ballaspur the editor User:doncram has suggested that the comment on a video says “….this is my corner….” passes the requirements of (independent) notability WP:N, WP:V and in regard to Ago’s Leap, suggested that a sign in a photo also passes the requirements of (independent) notability.

The editor User:doncram on these talk-page has repeatedly been asked to address the issue of article independent notability and also for the article list subject to the deletion request as required by Wikipedia rules but has failed to do so. The edit User:doncram has repeatedly redirected other articles to this article list, despite a requirement by Wikipedia for an independent article to exist. In the Isle of Man TT network of articles the editor User:doncram has again been forcing his opinions on other editors/edit warring over article content/independent notability to support his own policy in the development of the list including the inclusion of nonsensical comments or sections that conflict with the original articles, the use of USA technical terms not found in British-English and an emphasis on misleading whimsical and flippant quotations, along with a strong bias to US-internet citations that are questionable sources. These issues are not off-topic as they relate to the deletion review and along with the continued use of the edit summary to by-pass talk:pages or BRD discussions or by article redirection by the editors User:Rocknrollmancer and User:doncram which is linked to the deletion review and the behaviours of the two editors.

agljones(talk)09:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article has no Notability. WP:NP and duplicates / contradicts information in the Snaefell Mountain Course article and other articles in the Isle of Man TT network of articles. The issue of independent notability has not been addressed in the Executive Summary. There are multiple issue plagiarism / Original Research WP:OR and the 'creative' issues in producing the list as it has been reproduced without attributing it to its source. WP:INTEGRITY. It is also almost completely impossible to incorporate newly researched information due to the contradictory list article taking priority over the separate articles.

  agljones(talk)08:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.