Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:VanishedUser kasdjklajdskl/List of Antarctica Flora and Fauna

 __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 Soft Delete. — xaosflux  Talk 03:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

User:VanishedUser kasdjklajdskl/List of Antarctica Flora and Fauna


Old userspace draft from 2011 that is largely unsourced about Antarctica flora and fauna. Currently, the text is at Antarctica and Wildlife of Antarctica with actual sources. I don't know if there's anyone interested in using this draft or whether it can be deleted as redundant now. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, if no one from WikiProject_Antarctica wants it. I posted a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Antarctica.  Checking the history, it can be seen that it is the product of a shared account for primary and high school students organised by a teacher from Ohio school in 2011.  It appears completely redundant, delete in favour of Antarctica and Wildlife of Antarctica. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's also tagged with the Wikiproject on the talk page so it should show up at WikiProject Antarctica/Article alerts and on the main project page tomorrow. Same for the plants project. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Probably delete, but: Was any text from this draft incorporated into the articles you linked? Check the articles around creation versus what's in the draft. If the language in the draft predates the language in the article we might have a problem. It looks, though, like most of the language was lifted from the individual articles (e.g., on krill) intending for it to be incorporated via summary style. I would argue that in such form it might be in violation of WP:UP, though I'm not sure. In short, if there's no attribution requirement, delete. Vanished users are presumed not to be returning. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 07:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * These vanished users were a school-wide group account, they will never be allowed to return to it, and they can never substantiate personal attribution rights. Also, list information is not copyrightable, is has been found (somewhere, US law, to not cross the required creative transformation threshold).  The bits of prose are pretty weak in isolation.  I don't think there is anything to worry about.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Some of the entries are like a paragraph long. I'm pretty sure that is creative enough to require attribution. I'm not too worried about it; just spotting the potential issues as I see them. Just needs a quick check. But yeah, the fact that it was a shared course account is not a best practice. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 11:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The vanished user never edited mainspace (including deleted edits). The page history had no other users so if it was used, it wasn't by the user and there wasn't attribution but at that point we're in known unknowns territory. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:10, 23 March 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.