Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:List of the prehistoric life of France

 __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: Userfy. Page was moved to userspace by the creator. I'll delete the redirect for the sake of this MfD, but there's nothing else needed here. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 20:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft:List of the prehistoric life of France


There are dozens of these massive redlink collection pages listing prehistoric life of the "country of Alabama" that keep coming up for G13. I can't see any way this would survive in mainspace but when we G13 them a restore request quickly follows. It will take ages to turn even most of the links blue to make these drafts usable. I'm bring one for deletion discussion to set a precedent against the rest just like it. Perhaps the editor behind this effort can enlighten everyone what this is all about. Legacypac (talk) 08:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. No draft-space reasons to delete.  XfDs capture extreme cases, and extreme case make bad law.  Do not attempt to use mfd to set new precedents when what you are really doing is trying to develop some kind of policy.  What you need to do for that is a proposal, thoroughly advertised discussed and tested for consensus in an RfC.  I think these pages are within scope of draftspace, G13 was created for the abandoned forgotten things, if these are not abandoned and forgotten they are not for G13.  However, if they are long term drafting, i recommend moving them to a wikiproject. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No new policy needed or wanted, just a weird situation I keep coming up against while doing G13 patrol. This is not an extreme case, it's just one of many very similar pages that appear to attempt to cover every country and many regions of countries. These were mass created and are now abandoned in mass. Test cases are recommended in the deletion guiidelines. I might nominate a big batch or maybe postpone deletion on a bunch, depending on how this goes. Legacypac (talk) 09:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * To establish your rationale as a reason for deletion, you will need new policy. Nothing there justifies the bringing of a draft to mfd for deletion.  I note that the author, User:Abyssal, is one of the two who was keen to develop auto-portals.  Doing it in draftspace was the right thing to do.  If they are abandoned, leave them for G13.  If they are not abandoned, then “keep”.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This page (and a bunch like it) was up for G13 today. I don't know anything about the creator and portals. Legacypac (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I do. This is connected.  It is motivated by improving navigation.  I like the idea, but I am not convinced these attempts are likely to work.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I also have suspicions that this is connected. I recognized Legacypac's name immediately from a recent deletion nomination for a portal with justifications that were inconsistent with Wikipedia's normal deletion policy. If being incomplete is justification why don't we delete stub articles? If he disliked the changes the Transhumanist made, why doesn't he just revert them? In any case this nomination is moot since I've been userfying these lists for a while now. Abyssal (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Stop casting aspirations. Draft and userspace is for pages under development. If there is a near zero chance these pages are going to mainspace they are a WP:NOTAWEBHOST issue. I don't know what to think of them except they strike me as extremely unlikely to ever be mainspace ready and putting them on a G13-REFUND path over and over seems pointless. Legacypac (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

FYI The page in question was moved since you nominated it for deletion and there is no direct link to this discussion from the page itself. -- Dolotta (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment This and similar articles tend to have a lot of blue links pointing to the wrong subject. This is because plant and animal genera are allowed to share a name (see Category:Genus disambiguation pages for examples). There are some pretty common patterns in naming genera that lead to shared names; one is adding "ia" to the end of a common western European surname. So this article links to Boltonia which is an extant genus of plants from North America and Asia, not a prehistoric whatever from France. This situation is particularly problematic with large lists of paleontological taxa, because Wikipedia's coverage of organisms is heavily biased towards modern taxa, not prehistoric ones. With few articles for paleontological taxa, potential title collisions go unnoticed and wrong links are made. Plantdrew (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Discussion runs for a week even with the page move. I read attacks on me, but no explanation of how this page will be used in Wikipedia and why it is not a WP:WEBHOST violation.  Please stay on the discussion at hand.  Robert figured out how to fix the link broken by the mid discussion page move. Legacypac (talk) 02:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - Whatever this is, it is so messed up that it needs deleting, and moving it to user space was just disruptive, and one more reason to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - It is a weird mixture of being about Alabama and France. That is problematic enough that it doesn't seem likely to be fixed or to fix itself.  (It isn't a self-maintaining portal that fixes itself, but self-maintaining portals that fix themselves are a myth.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The Alabama text was placeholder meant to be replaced with a semi-automated process. None of the actual content is related to Alabama. Abyssal (talk) 02:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - User:Abyssal is cautioned. The banner on any page that whose deletion is being discussed says that it may be edited but may not be blanked or moved.  It was moved.  If it is moved again, I will request that an admin lock it against moving for the duration of the MFD.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is stupid. Moving it from draft to userspace is a de facto deletion anyway. I practically handed the nominator what he wanted on a silver platter. Abyssal (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Allow userfication per the wishes of the sole substantial author, User:Abyssal. Advise experienced Wikipedians generally to not use draftspace in place of userspace, and to read WP:DUD.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete it's based off of List of the prehistoric life of Alabama which has spawned multiple List of the prehistoric life of (state in US) articles. The problem with the lists is that it is not clear how they were constructed. WP:NOTSTATS "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics". The reference is Fossilworks database, but that website just has a search function where you can look up any stuff that matches a state/region. Also there is no context for having a list solely connected to France or a specific state. It would need news articles and journals discussing prehistoric life in France. Per WP:NOTCATALOG "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations" for crossing fossils with particular states "unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon"   AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 19:47, 5 April 2019 (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.