Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Originary inhabitants of Gibraltar

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 Delete Naconkantari 18:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Originary inhabitants of Gibraltar

Originary inhabitants of Gibraltar (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Duplicative of exising articles Gibraltar and Demographics of Gibraltar. NawlinWiki 13:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as POV and factually incorrect. The Spaniards were conquerors too; they were not the original inhabitants. Ask the Celts, the Carthaginians, the Romans, the Visigoths, and the Moors, who were all there before the modern Spanish. If it is kept, the word "originary" should be changed to "original". --Charlene 14:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Charlene: Modern Spaniards are the product of the mixing of all these people you have just mentioned. Your comment is akin to saying that the modern British people are not really British because the Celts, Angles and Saxons were there before them. (i.e. a nonsensical argument).--Burgas00 14:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This article is racist nonsense. It purports to claim that the Spanish inhabitants of Gibraltar were 'Original' and 'Gibraltarian' neither is true; This myth supports the irredentist Spanish claim. The history of Gibraltar is one of successive occupations, the Spanish one being in the middle. The Spanish inhabitants had a choice of remaining or leaving, and freely chose to escape future conflict. The term 'Gibraltarian' did not exist at the time so cannot be applied to them. Today it has a precise legal meaning. The article remains unnecessary this is covered extensivly in the Gibraltrar and San Roque pages where it has been subject to extensive editing to achieve a more honest consensus. --Gibnews 18:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Please explain what is racist about this article. I dont understand that allegation which you use quite often. It is true that the history of Spain is one of successive occupations. It was occupied by the Carthaginians, Romans, the Visigoths, the Vandals, the Moors, the French and the Brits... That has little to do with the fact that the people who were born in Gibraltar are Gibraltarian.--Burgas00 14:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Heavily POV on the spanish side of the continuing Gibraltar dispute. Such an article I would expect to have a longer history than the 16th century. Surely someone else lived there before then - the Med has been occupied for millenia. Robovski 00:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not an article about the history of Gibraltar. It is about a population group, akin to Korean-Americans or Palestinians. There is no need to give a history of the territory, which is no different from that of any surrounding town.--Burgas00 14:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

At the time of review, the lead line was "The original inhabitants of Gibraltar..." which was patently false (ever heard of Phoenecians?), and set a history of Gibraltar. Robovski 15:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete poorly-spelled Spanish POV. Lankiveil 01:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC).
• Keep, but modify. I have already changed the name which I admit was POV. The Gibraltarian identity and heritage of these Spaniards is a reality and is not covered at all in other Gibraltar related articles, so the allegation that the material is duplicated is false. This article makes no controversial statement. It simply mentions the existence of a collective of people in history and at present. --Burgas00 01:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Your assertion that the article is now NPOV is false, as demonstrated by this quote: "The Spanish Gibraltarians or original inhabitants of Gibraltar, as opposed to the present inhabitants of Gibraltar, were those who left (voluntarily or forcibly) the town of Gibraltar during the British conquest of this town from Spain. 4000 Gibraltarians left the town in 1704 - the vast majority of Gibraltar's population at that time." Also, it is customary to state that you are the original author of the article in these discussions. Robovski 15:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure. But what is POV about that paragraph and how can it be modified to make it NPOV? Do you agree with the title change?--Burgas00 15:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Burgas00 : It would be nice if your contributions to this topic were in one place rather than splattered all over everyone elses. That the article is racist nonsense seems evident to everyone else. It would also have been polite to have left the article alone whilst its being discussed. --Gibnews 21:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The history of this is all adequately covered in the main article on Gibraltar, which already makes perfectly clear both the number of Spanish inhabitants who decided not to remain under British occupation and the circumstances of the war which led to Gibraltar being ceded in perpetuity to Britain. What that leaves for this article is merely a group of present-day Spaniards who claim descent from those four thousand, and have formed a little club for themselves. Unless they have had significant media exposure -- and the references provided so far make no such claim -- they do not belong in Wikipedia, per policy and long-standing precedent. — Haeleth Talk 10:23, 14 November 2006 (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.

The following discussion was added after closure. Please do not edit AfD pages after the discussion is closed. Discussion is continued at Wikipedia:Deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

• Keep This article is NPOV and informative.--Burgas00 19:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• It's not a vote Seriously, have you read the AfD guidelines? And again, I point out that you are the original author and the person who renamed it after the nomination to AfD. You've also tried to convince the closing admin that this was a different article to the one under discussion. This is a POV fork and doesn't add any notable information that isn't already in the main Gibraltar article. Delete Robovski 22:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems the article has been deleted by mistake... I have restored a previous version of it. Can someone please add the references which have been lost?--Burgas00 18:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

There was a vote on the article based on its content rather than its name, the majority felt it should be deleted, so it was. Time for you to move on. --Gibnews 19:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Gibnews both the name and the content are completely different. Have a look at the article in good faith, even though i know u disagree with the new article also.--Burgas00 19:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The debate is closed. Your article is to be deleted. You added this "subsection" to the AfD entry for your article, and you are trying to represent this as a vote, which it is not. AfD is a discussion about the article, not a vote, whether the article should be retained, and if so what need to be done. You have renamed the article but it is still a POV fork and doesn't contain any noteworthy information that isn't already in the Gibraltar article. Robovski 03:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)