Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Agravert/Ferdinand Gravert (2nd nomination)

 __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  No consensus. Nakon 04:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Agravert/Ferdinand Gravert


The last MfD closed with the idea he invented anti-fouling paint. I was unable to confirm this with the few sources I found evidently copying this directly from Wikipedia. The idea he invented the paint was added without sources and interestingly with reference to the same Alex Gravert as having info to the paint article. I'm wondering is this is a hoax, or at best OR. After the last MfD it was moved to draft to expose the page to more editors and allow others to try to improve it, but that has been reverted in the silly season that MfD has become. Legacypac (talk) 04:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per criteria 2b and 2d; the nominator has explicitly stated that they opened this for bad-faith reasons. As noted by in the history, the move to draft space was a disingenuous attempt to run around the previous keep consensus via G13. The relevant guideline, WP:STALEDRAFT, says nothing about moving user drafts to Draft: space. VQuakr (talk) 04:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "The relevant guideline, WP:STALEDRAFT, says nothing about moving user drafts to Draft: space." is false.
 * I'm bringing new info about the paint situation, and that this has been found unsuitable even for draft space. A little education   Legacypac (talk) 05:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Why do you think the links to a WikiProject talk page are germane? VQuakr (talk) 05:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Calling out 2b and 2d as the basis for your keep is a direct personal attack on me. Strike that too please. You can all you want but Cryptic can't overrule policy that explicitly allows a move to draft space. Legacypac (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Historic figure, it is not prone to going stale. No good reason to place a time limit ultimatum, interested editors can get to it in their own good time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you can't provide a RS source for the content, voting to keep it is not helpful. Legacypac (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Imposing time limits for user pages with potential and no problems is the bigger problem. This page is an example of a page not ready for mainspace, but with potential. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Move to draft space so "interested editors can get to it in their own good time". If you believe this actually had a shot to be an article (and it very well may, if reliable sources can be found), then it should be where more editors will find and work on it. Alternatively, it could be submitted to WP:AFC by any editor if it's good enough for inclusion. ~ RobTalk 22:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, to those claiming WP:STALEDRAFT contains nothing on this, you may want to re-read. "Unfinished draft articles may be moved to draft namespace or Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts for adoption by other editors if the original author no longer wants them or appears to have stopped editing." I didn't go back to find the exact time it was added, but it's been there since at least 2014. We can fundamentally disagree on what policy should be, but let's not also start disagreeing on what current policy says. ~ RobTalk 22:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Given comments you've made above, you may wish to read the above. ~ RobTalk 22:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * indeed, thanks. Struck the sentence. VQuakr (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Also worth noting that since I've now opposed a keep in userspace, those speedy keep criteria no longer apply. ~ RobTalk 23:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the timing of the responses is clear and there isn't much risk of it confusing the closer. VQuakr (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The text was added in August 2011]. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Move it into my personal space and then perhaps I'll agree to draftify it. Why would anyone demand it be kept in the editor's space if the editor isn't active here? Why make it impossible to actually find these things? If any of the editors who actually support this page are willing to adopt it, move it to their personal space and they can deal with it. Instead, how about moving it to User:Ricky81682/Ferdinand Gravert and I may consider draftifying it? Legacypac, you want to consider that in the future. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No objection to you or anyone else taking it. Mr Gravert (the creator) is not going to do anything with it. Legacypac (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Sounds like another disingenuous disruptive WP:GAME.
 * Userspace pages are not hard to find. I don't have time right now but I would like to try. MfD should not be used to force others to fix things on someone else's timetable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want to make accusations, go ahead but I'm actually looking for sources on the matter and not just accusing everyone else. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry Ricky, but given past behaviour, I was suspicious that Legacypac might have moved it to his own userspace to later CSD#U1 it. More recently I have seen reason to improve my trust in his intentions, so let me not that this was a past suspicion on my part.  I too have been looking at sources, and am starting to suspect clever fakery.   --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I mean, as long as you leave a redirect and don't U1 delete it or play any other GAMEs (and I trust you not to), I don't see why not. Presumably SmokeyJoe and others could still work on it if they wanted. You also should probably tag it for WikiProject Abandoned Drafts to keep it findable. It's an odd request though, given your apparent aversion to clutter. A2soup (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect, yes. U1 would be obvious gamesmanship but the question is, can I deposit it with AFC? It would then be subject to G13. After having seen WT:AFC, I wouldn't. If I deposit it in draftspace and don't work on it, it will show up in the draftspace backlogs and someone else may nominate it for deletion down the line, I can't help that. The point still is, if someone actually wants to work on this, why not personally suggest adopting the page? That makes a mountain more sense than keeping it in an inactive user's userspace where it's never going to be found. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * AfC is for creating articles, not processing articles, so depositing it at AfC when you don't think it should be created would be a subversion of both MfD and AfC and a clear GAME. Slower and less disruptive than moving to mainspace, but an equivalent practice. You can help it be found by tagging it for the project you set up (and thanks again for that). I don't see why immediate adoption is needed - presumably you set up the project so future adopters could find these things years down the line. A2soup (talk) 07:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I added Ferdinand Gravert. It seems to indication a lot of possible sources.  This one is probably appropriate.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really unless you're looking at circular ones. See User talk:Agravert/Ferdinand Gravert. The US Patent office and a US Senate report from 1899 aren't supporting this story. Given that the US Navy spent tens of thousands of dollars in the 1830s onward, I'm having a hard time imagining that the investor of this didn't get a patent nor even a mention by the Secretary of the Navy when he went to Congress. I suspect this is more of a thing that's been tried and guessed at since ships first were created out of iron and had fouling issues. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Strike that. Don't care. This may be a white whale that can never be proven and so we never actually disprove it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this "don't care" thing would be a good attitude to adopt towards all the good-faith, non-problematic userspace drafts out there. A2soup (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't care referred to arguing about the fact that the "lot of possible sources" aren't actually sources and arguing about their legitimacy. It's precisely why I support deleting the drafts that aren't going anywhere: because it takes a lot of work to do this right and just moving pages around and piling them up into backlogs does nothing in terms of focusing the people who are here now who actually want improve stuff. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ricky, is this our fundamental difference? If in doubt of potential, keep or delete?  You say delete, I say keep. We agree that it takes a lot of work to assess notability.  I think that to have a reasonable discussion/debate, at least one person has to be playing the advocate for yes, and that picking on draftwork of inactive users you are doing the wrong thing.  Take similar drafts in the userspace of active users, apply the same arguments, and then you get productive, precedent setting discussions.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I see what you might mean by circular. Google pulls up sources referencing Wikipedia.  I can't find where the specific information originally was on Wikipedia.  There is a lot of noisy signal connecting to anti-fouling paint, but I can't verify or find an original unreliable source.  This came from somewhere unknown.  Made up, or in an real old fashioned book or journal?  Most unhelpfully, Anti-fouling_paint is essentially unsourced, unsourced for its core material.  It still say "Keep", there is no indication of hoax, or promotion, and it is entirely historical.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The claim came from Alex Gravert - his name is attached to the claim most of the time. It's self promotion. Legacypac (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Example source. If it is promotion, it is very old promotion, not the usual sort of promotion aggressively not allowed.  If it is promotion of a hoax, it has some hallmarks of a notable hoax.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * A book published last September by a vanity press, years after this appeared in Wikipedia? Really? —Cryptic 06:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Cryptic. Is it?  Oh dear.  I have been fooled by these things before.  "AuthorHouse" is a vanity press?  How does one know these things?  In any case, I see that its publication date was last year, so it is very likely influenced by Wikipedia, or by the same alleged hoax-promotion.  Are we finding that the only sources are recent sources?  Is it unusually clever fictional history?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 60 seconds on their website was enough to find their price list. —Cryptic 07:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I oppose a move to someone else's userspace because there's zero benefit from keeping it in someone's userspace and a possible benefit of other editors finding and editing this if it's in the draftspace. ~ RobTalk 11:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I found that too and from the wording it appears the info came from the anti-fouling paint article, so it is circular. Legacypac (talk) 06:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Frankly the best way it will be found if it's tagged with the proper WikiProjects and the project shows interest in it. I highly doubt that people actively will search for this name or antifouling paint or whatever and check the box to search Draftspace (or userspace for that matter as neither are defaults). The two MFD pages are easier to find. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Draftify to Draft:Ferdinand Gravert. North America1000 06:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we've shown by now that this isn't ever going to be verifiable from online sources. Delete without prejudice to a WP:REFUND request by the author (or anyone else), so long as he provides some documentation that predates this draft and its appearance in anti-fouling paint.  As usual, inactive userpage blanked would have saved everyone a great deal of effort and aggravation. —Cryptic 07:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Why would it have been blanked? According to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Agravert/Ferdinand Gravert this was a good draft. It was moved to draftspace, denied to mainspace and then for the first time actually checked and the sources are shown to be false. Now, nobody can actually prove who invented anti-fouling paint (it's literally like who invented paint) so we can keep/delete/blank or whatever but it was moved and evaluated as allegedly a good draft. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Because it was absolutely, 100% harmless while in userspace, and the repeated attempts to delete it forced everyone commenting in the first MFD, the user reviewing the bad-faith move to AFC, and everyone commenting in this MFD to drop everything and evaluate it when they could have been doing something that actually mattered instead, solely because "some vandal could one day unblank it". Well, "some vandal" can still one day get it restored, and nobody need have wasted their time on it except Legacypac. —Cryptic 19:36, 19 April 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.