User:Balloonman/CSD Survey/2.9
| Quicklinks |
|---|
| Other Excellent articles on CSD |
Original Article
[edit]NAME: Samuel XXX
TEXT: Son of [Sam XXX], he created a religion called Samuelism, which aroused a large crowd of believers. He dedicated his life in the service of Hamulard, the god of Samuelism. In april 1795, Samuel XXX was shot in the epidermis leaving him fataly wounded. No followers of Samuelism are found today, but Hamulard's yams still roam free.[
Nomination Criteria
[edit]G1
Patent nonsense. Pages consisting purely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history. This does not include poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, poorly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes; some of these, however, may be deleted as vandalism in blatant cases.
Deletion Options
[edit]| rationale | Count | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Agree with ratioinale to speedy delete. | 9 | 14.1 |
| Disagree with rationale. G1 explicilty excludes Hoaxes and vandalism, but deletable by other criteria. | 37 | 57.8 |
| Disagree with rationale. G1 explicilty excludes Hoaxes, implausible theories, implausible theories, and vandalism, but this is a case where IAR applies. | 7 | 10.9 |
| Disagree with speedy deletion (should be PRODDED, sent to AFD, or kept.) | 11 | 17.2 |
Survey Comments
[edit]| Common rationale | Count |
|---|---|
| A7 | 4 |
| G3 | 8 |
| PROD | 1 |
- answer could change if evidence could be found that the religion was real and/or the founder was real. In that case, keep and clean it up
- should be deleted under G3, assuming there is no better version in page history
- I send hoaxes to AfD so someone else can IAR.
- lol, "shot in the epidermis"....
- not a hoax. Hoax implies intent to deceived--thisis just playing around. Possible G3, vandalism
- Check for copyvio. Check for obvious hoax. Check for notability - if notable improve/rewrite with references. If none of the above, PROD.
- Has meaningful content. Prod as probably, but not obviously, a hoax. Not an A7.
- I'd delete under G3. "shot in the epidermis" and "yams still roam free" tell me everything I need to know.
- probably a hoax but certainly not a speedy candidate
Balloonman's analysis
[edit]Let's look at this again, it was deleted per G1 and 14% of the people who took the survey agree with that decision. Is it a hoax? Yes, then it isn't deletable via G1. Is it vandalism? Yes, then it isn't deletable via G1. You can't even claim IAR to delete it under G1, IAR can only be stretched so far and when you have to IAR to ignore rules that are explicitly spelled out, then you aren't IAR, you are placing yourself about community consensus.
Is it a hoax? Yes. Hoaxes are not immune from CSD, they just have to cross the threshold into deliberate misinformation. Is it vandalism? Yes. Delete it per G3.
What about the notion of A7 that several people suggested? A7 only applies to real people, not to fictional ones---and if it is a real person, then there is an assertion of importance/notability.