Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:All the Stepford Connect stations

 __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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:All the Stepford Connect stations

 * – (View MfD)

Probably needs speedied, just not sure what to tag it with MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete as wrong namespace. Info should go to Draft:Stepford County Railway, which is some kind of Roblox fan game, where previous iterations were deleted for advertising. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Userfy - In its present form, it does not look like a draft, but only some notes that may be pulled into a draft. Should be in user space until organized in the form of a draft or pulled into a draft.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. a careless dump, in a bad place, of information from scr.fandom.com/wiki/Stepford_Connect  Wikipedia does not want importation from the Stepford County Railway Wiki.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily disagree that this draft should be moved to the userspace, but I disagree that we can't transclude content from Fandom (per this, which states content is licensed under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise stated on a Fandom wiki). It's good that sought to make Wikia, as it was then known, licensed under CreativeCommons. So, I guess I disagree that that alone should be a rationale for deletion. I haven't looked in to when this draft was last edited, but 's case of userfying the draft is one I'd support. At present, I don't really have any strong opinion either way. Consider this my support is to support the prevailing consensus at close. ;)--Doug Mehus (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The reason Wikipedia does not want fandom stuff is not due to copyright permissions, but due to fandom not being a reliable source. WP:RS. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * True, but I wasn't suggesting using Fandom as a reliable source, but rather re-using the verbiage (with attribution, of course), rather than rewriting, if supported by reliable sources elsewhere. Hope that makes sense. --Doug Mehus (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Please do not copy verbiage from unsuitable sources. Please do not force article attribution of unsuitable sources. Use only reliable sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Kind of disagree there, but will agree to disagree. I was speaking just to innocuous language, substantiated by reliable, independent sources. The former would be acknowledged via attribution and backed up/cited by more reliable sources. Doug Mehus (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Having looked at the page in question, my question is, why is in the Wikipedia namespace? If the intent was to establish a portal, it was not in the proper fashion. I don't see the makings of an article here, either, so concur with the nom and others (i.e., ) to delete. Doug Mehus (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Reply to Regarding speedy deletion, I'd go with G2 (as my first choice), followed by G1, or a custom rationale, if you were to go that route. It does seem like a test page, if not patent/incoherent nonsense. Hopefully no one would untag this as not being patent nonsense. ;)Doug Mehus (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - I will follow the lead of User:SmokeyJoe, who often wants to Keep stupid stuff for reasons with which I respectfully disagree, if he wants to Delete this stupid stuff. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't mean that User:SmokeyJoe's reasoning is stupid or that it is his stuff that he wants kept. I don't respectfully disagree with stupid reasoning; I only disagree with that.  He and I often disagree about what to do with stupid stuff, and this is stupid stuff that isn't needed.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I default to keep in userspace and draftspace, there needs to be a good reason to delete, not a good reason to keep. This is not userspace or draftspace.  I read this as sourced from an unreliable source, and any use of the material taken from the unreliable source would be a negative to the project.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Concur. It's entirely in the wrong namespace. Ordinarily, I'd favour migrating to draftspace or userspace, but this just seems like wholesale cutting and pasting from a Fandom wiki without any indication of, or an intent to, refactoring and expanding it into a coherent article. It strikes me, more or less, as a combination of user test editing (i.e., wrong namespace) and nonsense. Doug Mehus (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - being in the wrong name space is fixable, but this is not usable as a start for an article so moving it to draft is not useful. -- Whpq (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom and TNT and NOTADIRECTORY. Britishfinance (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete "Stepford Connect" is not a real thing - a google search shows that it does not exist outside of Fandom wikis. Delete per WP:MADEUP/WP:NOTWEBHOST. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 10:17, 30 October 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.