Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Turaj the Pupil

 __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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Turaj the Pupil


Tagged at AfC as a hoax and tagged CSD by me as a hoax but declined. There is no redeeming purpose in keeping whatever this nonsense is around to stroke the ego of the person that posted it. Legacypac (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Two admins have set limits to what can be blown out at speedy deletion and what has to be blown out after discussion, and this is not G3, but it is still a crudball. Delete it, and consider whether to warn the author that some jokes are not funny.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - It wasn't even marginally close to G1. It was marginally close to G3.  If it's marginal as to any speedy criterion, take it to MFD, which is where it is.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Another user tagged G1 and later I tagged G3 hoax to match the decline. Legacypac (talk) 04:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the mfd tag revert mistake, I think I got confused looking at the different versions in the history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And I got confused by comments I'd tagged it for CSD twice. i'm not seeing it as a G11 though because you can't even identify who this is talking about- its more just stupid. Legacypac (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unsourced self promotion.
 * USer:DESiegel and User:Bbb23 were correct to decline for G1 and G3 respectively.
 * I think it fits G11. Completely unsourced promotion.  The author  needs to be encouraged edit constructively.  Then, the information might suit his userpage.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * strong keep This is not promotional in any way that I can see. It is unsourced, but then it is a draft, and drafts are routinely unsourced at some stage of their development. I see nothing nonconstructive here. The person described may well not be notable, indeed is not unless additional information is forthcoming, along with sources. But that is no reason to delete. It would not be inappropriate as it stands for a user page description, however. Those who tagged this for speedy deletion should be admonished to conform to the listed criteria better. A Hoax should be demonstrably false. This page says that its subject believes that he is instructed by the long-dead Plato. Perhaps he honestly does believe that. Many people have believed less probable things. It does not state that this belief is accurate. If this is a hoax, then many pages about religious figures who think themselves inspired are hoaxes. How is this promoting anyone or anything? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 05:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - It is garbage. KJP1 (talk) 09:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not a userpage, a Draft submitted to inclusion in mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 09:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * True, it was created in a user sandbox and submitted to AfC, and then moved to draft space by an editor other than the creator. Clearly it could not be approved for mainspace in anything like its current form. Some above are assuming that it is intended to describe the creating user, with very little evidence that I can see. If it is, that user could arguably use it on a user page. But it has not been so used. But the purpose of draftspace and of AfC is too allow texts to be developed until, with time and effort, they become suitable for mainspace. This has not been resubmitted over and over. This is recent. There is no reason to delete it, rather than simply reject the submission and allow the submitor to improve it if s/he can, and chooses to. It does not harm, is not searchable via search engines. deleting it in this way violates WP:BITE in my view. What policy does its existence as an unapproved draft violate? Do recall that deletion should be the last resort, not the first response. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as nonsensical and useless to our fundamental goal of building an encyclopedia. Looking across a range of the MFD nominations on this page DESiegel's keep !votes seem to be down to some sort of personal issue with Legacypac which I haven't got the time, nor energy to investigate. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Beats me why but I'm getting the same impression. Yes the submitted userspace draft was moved to mainspace as is our normal practice. The AfC templates tell us to do that and for good reason. It helps identify the subject, checks for mainspace deletion history and if the title exists in mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * We are here because DES declined another editor's G1. Now that was technically correct because Wiki patent nonsense defination is narrower than the standard english meaning of the phrase. I tagged it G3 for at least part of the page is a hoax but that was declined - incorrectly I believe. Since two different reviewers think this is CSD worthy I brought it to MfD where I'm shocked to see an Admin voting keep on garbage. Legacypac (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not objecting to Legacypac, nor do i have some sort of personal objection to that editor. I do have strong objections to what Legacypac, and some other editors, have been doing, or trying to do, at MfD. First, as to the speedy deletions attempted on this page: the criteria are narrow, bright-line things. If a page isn't clearly within the written criteria, then any tag should be promptly declined. Legacypac says that part of this page is a hoax. A hoax is an assertion that something is true when it is in fact false. It must therefore be a purported assertion of fact, not of opinion. It is also intended to deceive. What exactly is the false statement here, and how does anyone know that it is false? The page says  and . The verbs here are calls and belives' (sic). For all we know this is perfectly accurate, that this Turaj does so describe himself and does so believe. No Hoax there, although any such belief may be quite ill-founded.
 * I will freely agree that this could never become a valid article without drastic changes, and this is probably the weakest of the drafts on which I have voted keep currently being discussed at MfD. But I see a significant number of drafts being nominated for deletion here without any policy-based reason. "Garbage" is simply a form of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. So is "crudball". Neither is a valid reason to delete any page. I object to deletion on any such basis, by anyone here. I object even more to it being done in draft space, which was set up as a comparatively safe space, where only the most extreme and blatant problems would lead to deletion. In this case, I think perhaps the move to draftspace was a mistake, that perhaps instead of transferring, declining, and tagging for speedy in close succession, should have engaged with  and tried to find out what the actual intent was here. But that is not required, and perhaps feels onerous on a routine basis. It also might not have worked. In any case, this hasn't been endlessly resubmitted, it doesn't seem to be an attempt to promote anything, it isn't a resume, it isn't commercial, and it wouldn't be occupying anyone's time if this MfD nom had not been made. It may have been intended as a joke, I can't tell. No harm would be done to simply ignore it and let the creator make any possible improvements to it, or ask for it back in userspace. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per my previous nomination for speedy deletion - - When you say "I can't tell," that is the exact point I was making on my talk page here. The speedy deletion criteria says - "while apparently intended to mean something, is so confusing that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it" - it is only logical to me that while it intends to mean something, no reasonable person can make sense of it. If I am wrong about my interpretation of the guideline, please clarify as I asked a few weeks ago but didn't get a response to. Would love to know the best way to take care of crap like this other than leaving it there or wasting time at long discussions such as this.  --CNMall41 (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * something is patent nonsense in the WP:CSD sense only if it is either: a) letter salad, kitten on the keys, not even making words, or b) word salad, strings of words not making meaningful sentences. In this case I have no trouble understanding the meaning of the text: it describes a person who is a student of specific subjects, but who believes or wants to believe that he is also a mystic, inspired by a long-dead philosopher. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

DES should spare us all the wiki lawyering and process wonkery to justify bad declines. In userspace it was U5 which in retrospect is how it should have been handled instead of moving to Draft space. Legacypac (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * DES’ declines were good, correct, and necessary. CSD abuse is the worst of any process abuse, letting people get away with it leads to a complete loss of faith in the management of the project. Legacypac, you have never been much for details, CSD is all about objective details, and you yourself are a frequent abuser of process.  There are pros and cons for this sort of behaviour, but abuse of CSD is a line that must be respected.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * the WP:CSDs are, and should be, interpreted narrowly and strictly. They are the only cases where a page can be deleted promptly and without discussion or chance of objection. They are pre-authorized consensus for deletion in particular circumstances. No admin is authorized to step one inch outside the narrow meaning of the written criteria. Deletion must be by consensus, either after discussion, or after a period with no objection (by PROD), or by consensus in advance, the CSDs. Absent such a consensus, deletion is misuse of the tools and can be grounds for de-sysoping. This is not wiki-lawyering, it is adherence to policy, one of the strictest policies we have. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * delete - submitted this, as it stood in that diff, to be considered as a WP article.  As it stood it was not a WP article in substance, nor in spirit.  Whether we call it a joke (if it is not autobiography) or just clumsy abuse of WP for self-promotion or as a personal blog page, it has no place anywhere in WP -- even userspace is not OK to be used this way, and even if it had not been submitted (and it was), it would be speedy deletable under U5.  I do not agree with SmokeyJoe or DESiegel at all here.  This MfD is pretty much a waste of volunteer time, which is the lifeblood of WP. Jytdog (talk) 12:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, with what do you disagree? My delete !vote?  My assertion that G11 applies?  Or my contention that CSDs should be applied accurately?  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I am looking at the actual page here. This needs to be gotten rid of (you and I agree there), and DES's !keep vote is simply POINTY.
 * I understand where Legacypac is coming from and I am glad they are trying to do this work to maintain draft space, as difficult as it is. I also get frustrated with Legacypac sometimes -- I struggle with some of what they choose to move to mainspace. The focus of bigger-picture comments here, has been on their efforts to delete stuff. That is the rock and hard place that Legacypac's efforts find themselves between.
 * That said, the notion that the speedy criteria are not subject to interpretation at all is ...overwrought at best. That is where I am disagreeing with you in particular. I should have been more clear in my comments above. Sorry. Jytdog (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2018 (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.