Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ferry Lane Estate Wildlife/sandbox

 __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  Keep - yes, it needs work, but that's why there are sandboxen. I suspect, for instance, the content would do better as a section of Ferry lane estate, but that's an organisational issue, not an existence issue. Perhaps with some trimming (or not, I don't know, and the discussion doesn't substantially address it). If there's an argument to be made this is a fake article, and not a good faith attempt by a new user to construct an article, it hasn't been made here (nor can I divine it). Wily D 08:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Ferry Lane Estate Wildlife/sandbox


FAKEARTICLE with no real claim of notability, and whose content quickly declines into listcruft — Rutebega ( talk ) 18:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This is being worked on by an IP, likely the user, probably for the encyclopaedia. Location, species listed etc. all seem genuine. Looking at the user's talk page, it seems this particular new user has not only be bitten, but thoroughly chewed up for not following username policy. The scope of his/her work looks narrow, but perhaps that can be negotiated?  Klein zach  16:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Read WP:FAKEARTICLE. Is the article truly suitable for inclusion? Certainly not. Therefore, deletion is the best course of action. In short, it's a notability issue. Frequently, people are willing to include content simply because it's true. However, our policy prevents us from universally including things that "seem genuine", since articles must be notable. If you really think this page is notable, then that's the debate we'll have, but I think we both know there's not much of an argument to be made there. — Rutebega ( talk ) 16:38, 11 February 2013 (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.