Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Diesel Loco Shed, Gonda

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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:  delete. RL0919 (talk) 08:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Diesel Loco Shed, Gonda

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Would be G13'd soon if not for socks editing it to save it from deletion. Since CSD has been stopped by that procedural loophole, sending to MfD so we don't have another sock coming in 6 months to save it again. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The usual counterargument in cases like this is that the draft is a useful flytrap: if another sock does come back in six months, it's quite easy to tell who the master is. That being said, I'm glad to trust your judgment on this sort of thing, Tony, so I'll !vote delete given the abuse of G13. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete this sock created and edited draft, which arguably fails GNG anyhow. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep : Looks Plausibly notable. Deal with the sock concerns at WP:SPI, not mfd. I see nothing the least bit offensive in the content to warrant mfd deletion of a draft.  SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The motivation for G13 was the occurrence of copyright and BLP violations in the tens of thousands of old unlatched drafts. This concern does not apply to the draft.  If it’s destiny is G13, there is no reason to rush it this six months over some time in the distant future.  In the meantime, the proponents may yet learn what Wikipedia is about and something good may come from this draft. I am also concerned about the systematic bias of railways in the UK getting a much easier run tha railways in India. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The root of the problem appears to be Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1064, a behavioural issue leading to a block, the user not listening, and then I guess the person socking rather than responding to the block. This does not mean that the content is not suitable for mainspace.  I am uncomfortable with the unilateral draftification of the page from mainspace, but I will not protest that, or reverse it, without an active proponent, in good standing, for the topic. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * While I still think the maintenance shed could be plausible, there is nothing in the draft supporting Wikipedia-notability. Instead, I see many train-fan pages that collect images, and a lack of reliable secondary sources.
 * I am now wondering whether this page is an example of wiki-grind work, created for the process of creating an edit history for a sock account. TonyBallioni, is this a reasonable guess? This page was created to support socking, and was not created in good faith?  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Or User:Johnuniq, if you could answer? SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have no idea although I suspect that discussing the issue would not be desirable. I have seen plenty of cases where an LTA has a talent for finding material and adding it here, and they enjoy the work and believe it benefits humanity. The only problem being that the material does not match established expectations such as notability. I'm sure you're right that such work may be done to establish an edit history before launching their real agenda, however some people have an urge to contribute although they might be super-inclusionists who don't agree with WP:N. Johnuniq (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Keeping this page would serve to reward sockpuppetry, which should not be done. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete This page has no substantial edits by others. AKK  700  17:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete We could spend a month debating whether a repair facility is notable while disregarding the fact that no one had previously thought this topic warranted an article. However, per WP:IAR, our best strategy is to apply WP:DENY. Regarding the draft, it might look attractive with its pictures of trains. However, I cannot see any reliable source connecting those trains with the repair facility, and there certainly is no guideline saying that notability is inherited by pictures of trains. Johnuniq (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not judge it as “looks notable” on the basis of attractive figures, however on looking into what I saw, I do not think it is notable. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - The socks have been dealt with at SPI. A detail of the timing of when the suckpoppetry was done says that we deal with this at MFD rather than CSD.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep While sockpuppetry shouldn't be rewarded, this page is well-sourced, and has mention in two (What I assume to be) mainstream Indian news sources. I really don't see why it hasn't been submitted for review. We should do what we can to verify the page, and if it is trustworthy, we should put it in mainspace. ☢️Plutonical☢️  ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ  17:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The draft has nine external links. Five of them are trivia and don't appear to mention the topic. One is a dead link. Two are mentions. One has details and is from Indian Railways. There is no evidence of notability. Johnuniq (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2022 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.