Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Anthony Seldon/Box of seals

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

The result of the discussion was withdrawn. --BDD (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

User:Anthony Seldon/Box of seals

~~Recreation of speedied article from articlespace. One of a number of WP:MADEUP from this editor on a similar theme. See talk & history Anthony Seldon (talk · contribs)~~

Andy Dingley (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

note Page (and username) now moved to User:Seal Boxer/Box of seals

WITHDRAWN On the basis of WP:AGF, I'm withdrawing this.

I don't think this is a workable article that can ever meet WP:N and I still believe that it was created more as a pun than as a serious article. If a serious article is to be written on the subject, then it's more likely to belong at Seal transportation, would still have a risk of WP:NOTHOWTO, and it would need a more coherent editorial structure, rather than merely Googling and trying to patch together the results. I nominated this on the basis of WP:NOTHERE, which isn't the strongest of grounds. Although some early edits weren't encouraging, article creations like Tobacco pouch are, I believe, a genuine attempt to produce real and valid articles, so let's put the past behind. I wouldn't support this article in mainspace, for several content reasons as already noted, but they're not enough reason to extend deletion into userspace.

So welcome Seal Boxer, and I hope to see an extended Tobacco pouch as the first of many. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Note this page was added by request by User:Amatulic as a work in progess. I suspect this is a bad faith nomination, as the editor who nominated it has had issues with me in the past. Anthony Seldon (talk) 10:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Assuming good faith, I presume this user page exists as a user-space draft of an article that might eventually be brought to main article space. In its present form, it would face immediate deletion, but then, that's what userspace drafts are for. However, userspace drafts are not to languish undeveloped forever. This one has only been around for less than a week, and was created based on the suggestion of the admin who deleted the mainspace article. I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt for a while. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. This is a valid userfication of a premature article. Recommend a serious dialling-down of the drama here. I've closed the retaliatory AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warm glass and deleted the User:Anthony Seldon/AD diffs attack page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userification and sandboxing is one thing, but when the article's main content is " Expensive to send in post. Must contain air holes or seals will be dead upon opening." and we've already seen a stream of hoax articles from the same source, that's stretching GF credibility too far. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is just a hoax article which has been recreated in userspace. There's no potential for it to be developed into anything useful. Psychonaut (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'm not convinced that the author created this page in good faith. However, since this AfD was initiated he has demonstrated that there is sufficient published information to support an article about pinniped transportation in general. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the admin who speedy-deleted the article from main space and then userfied it, I felt that the sources provided showed that the article could potentially be expanded into a general article about the hazards of animal transportation, which could be a notable subject. We give broad latitude to how editors manage their user space, and I see no reason to single out one out of many users who has a draft that obviously isn't main space material. I suggest waiting a year or so, and if no improvement is forthcoming, delete it then. There's currently a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion about dealing with abandoned userspace drafts. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. This user is clearly WP:NOTHERE for the right reasons, and seems to only be interested in frivolous creations and hounding of Andy Dingley. To date, he only has one constructive edit as far as I can see. --BDD (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note I object to this referring me as a hound and frivolous - am I not permitted to work on my Box of Seals article without such allegations being thrown in my direction? For your information I have added some more content on the page that you are discussing, regarding the dangers of transporting a seal in a box filled with water. Although seals are aquatic mammals, transporting them in water is unnecessary and creates a risk of drowning. Anthony Seldon (talk) 10:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Anthony Seldon needs to do more to convince us that he really is working on an article. --Klein zach 11:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remark What do you propose? I am trying to work on this article today! Seal Boxer (talk) 12:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you changed your username from Anthony Seldon to Seal Boxer? Klein zach 07:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have, yes. Please see my talk page for more information. Apologies for any confusion this has caused.Seal Boxer (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reading the draft, I really do not see any possibility of an article using the current approach. A proper article would have to be under a different title (transportation of pinnipeds?) and written more carefully . DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. This is what you get if you start with a hoax article title (great band name, bad article topic) and then try to make it look like an article: Google for the text string and copy-paste in anything that matches. The lack of an underlying concept isn't an issue. Nor will it have any coherent editorial narrative.

There are boxes. There are seals. At times, seals have been placed within boxes. An encyclopedia article is more than the conjunction of two random nouns and a concordance. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True. But whatever his intentions in creating the initially ridiculous page, he's since uncovered many bona fide sources which discuss putting seals in boxes. Heck, there's even an entire scholarly article all about a box for seals. Even if this is just User:Seal Boxer's way of thumbing his nose at you for trying to delete his little joke, there's now sufficient material for him or anyone else to build a reliably sourced article on transportation of pinnipeds. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:48, 18 March 2013 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.