Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junction Fault


 * 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. No sources found for this ergo it fails WP:V. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Junction Fault

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No sources found for this. In the edit history, there was an image that shows the fault, but I can't figure out what fault that particular one is — and whether it truly cooresponds to this fault. Appable (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC) 2600:380:5677:D6F6:2081:2D71:8310:134F (talk) 03:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete at best as I've been following the deletion talks here and my searches simply found nothing at all. The article is of concern and there are no better signs here. SwisterTwister   talk  03:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Lol I love Wikipedia. Can we make this deletion discussion last long enough to give this hoax the five year mark? And for the hoax creator, of course, "Revision as of 02:09, 27 March 2011 User:MoobieNews "I have a current boycott against Wikipedia because they inhibit free speech." "Conjuntion, junction what's yo function?" "F-u-c-k wikipedia they will not let you upload any images, even if you took the picture. wikipedia is run by the government they are giving out immensely incorrect information. boycott wikipedia! boycott wikipedia!" May be nothing today, but it has already been copied into one of those crummy "printed from Wikipedia" self-published books. The reason for speedy deletion of hoaxes is to get them off of Wikipedia ASAP.
 * ABOVE COMMENT EDITED BY APPABLE who says the article should be kept for this reason, "I still feel like it may be mostly true, if slightly misstated." What? The article was stolen from an image caption, the article contradicts itself, and does not make sense, the article has no sources, the one source originally included was a fake, the account that created the article was a vandalism only account, there are no sources for the article except a book by a self-publishing house that copied the information from Wikipedia. It's a hoax. Move on. Or, try for the five year mark, seems to me Appable is trying to drag it out. 2600:380:5677:D6F6:2081:2D71:8310:134F (talk) 04:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not actually say the article should be kept. The fact that I nominated the article for deletion indicates otherwise. Appable (talk) 04:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You removed the speedy and the prod, admitting there were no sources, but discussing your "feelings" that it might be a real thing because the hoaxer plagiarized general text from a picture caption. Copied it incorrectly, by the way. So, your "feelings" are keeping this article on Wikipedia longer than necessary. Hoaxes should be speedied. They don't belong here. There is nothing that shows this article belongs on Wikipedia. Nothing, but your feelings. Not a reliable source at all. 2600:380:5677:D6F6:2081:2D71:8310:134F (talk) 04:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The picture of the fault was uploaded by user:Pollinator back in 2004, very active then but no longer contributing, the image description uses the name Junction Fault, so it seems very likely that it exists (albeit non-notable, at least under that name). Mikenorton (talk) 11:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The uploader describes the picture as that of a major geologic fault. Whatever is in the picture. The article writer then took the picture, faked a single reference, and declared a minor fault line along with a few other vandalism edits on a vandalism only account. But this is a huge problem on Wikipedia, editors saying someone took a picture, so the thing exists as something notable. Images should require verification, not be seen as starting points for unsourced information, especially by vandalism only accounts. High five to this vandal for this five year long run witb editors defending completely unsourced even falsely sourced info simply because the vandal used the image caption (unsourced, non verifiable, unreliable, unusable, good grief). This fault does look spectacular. But, you claim some expertise in geology. Two major geological provinces divided by a minor fault. Sure. I am going to make.up the San Fault and attach an image. 2600:380:5514:7587:AB7B:FAFF:83E6:23A0 (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So you think the uploader was lying about it being a fault called the Junction Fault in Pennsylvania? I don't really see that as a likely possibility. Appable (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Where exactly does the uploader say the picture is a fault called the Junction Fault in Pennsylvania? And, that is the beauty of Wikipedia. I don't have to judge his or her truthiness. I just check if they used reliable sources. Was Essjay lying? I think we did that already. 2600:380:5514:7587:AB7B:FAFF:83E6:23A0 (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 *  Dividing fault between Appalachian Mountains and Allegheny Plateau. A major geologic fault (directly behind small trees) can be seen in a new roadcut about 10 miles north of en:Williamsport, Pennsylvania on new Route 15. The fault is just about at the line that divides the folded en:Appalachian Mountains and the merely uplifted en:dissected plateau of the en:Allegheny Plateau. On the left hand (south side) is metamorphic rock. On the right hand is en:sedimentary rock, which, as one continues northward becomes mostly horizontal.


 * I don't see anything in that description that says the fault in that picture is called "The Junction Fault." Pollinators doesn't use that once to say that is the name of the fault within the description.


 * I have a number of flower pictures I uploaded to Wikipedia. They have file names like "Yellow_cactus_flower.jpg," and very similar, are you going to write the Yellow Cactus Flower article and swear up and down that because there is an image file with the name on Wikipedia, there must be such a species, and it deserves an article? 2600:380:5514:7587:AB7B:FAFF:83E6:23A0 (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  03:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete This is too short of an article. 2602:306:3357:BA0:44CE:9F13:491E:FF7C (talk) 04:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No such criterion exists on Wikipedia. 2600:380:5677:D6F6:2081:2D71:8310:134F (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If enough people want such a criterion we could create it, but in this case I do not support the ""too short" idea. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete when I checked for sources I only found faults in other places with this name. Either this does not exist, or is too unimportant for an article.  Without a real source the content is not worth keeping.  Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - no sources found - could be a local name for a fault better known as something else, but that's just speculation. Mikenorton (talk) 11:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2016 (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.