Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Secmarilla/Secmarilla

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 JohnCD (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax? SPhilbrickT 21:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes it is a hoax, it looks like an article, but is not in article space. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• True, but I found it because it had a request to move to article space. Which I have removed. Perhaps that is all that is necessary?--SPhilbrickT 00:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It is harmful to keep hoaxes on Wikipedia, so you did the right think in nominating the page for MfD. Cunard (talk) 06:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If you had moved it to article space, I would have speedy deleted it! No discussion necessary. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The move request states: Note that the request may not be fulfilled if the article meets criteria for speedy deletion. So I didn't. Should we change the wording?--SPhilbrickT 14:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think that the wording of the move instruction can be that easily changed. This friendly discussion will not be able to cover all the situations for moves. That is why we have MFD. You were right in not moving it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.

  Furthermore, delete per Wikipedia:User pages#Excessive unrelated content, which prohibits "Extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project, its community, or an encyclopedia article. (For example in the latter case, because it is pure original research, is in complete disregard of reliable sources, or is clearly unencyclopedic for other clear reasons.)"

  This userspace copy has been created by a single-purpose account whose sole purpose is to write nonsense; no other edits outside of this topic have been made from this account. This userspace draft of a previously deleted article about a made up island violates the policy WP:NOTWEBHOST and should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 06:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Because my "Secmarilla" Google search for "Secmarilla" returns no reliable sources, I conclude that this is a hoax and has no chance of being useful to the project. Cunard (talk) 06:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:UPNOT. As this page is completely fictional, this page fits the criterion of being "Extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project, its community, or an encyclopedia article". I would be interested in finding out why the editor who created this page did so. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not helpful to the encyclopedia. Conflicts with WP:UP. Johnuniq (talk) 07:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.