Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lexiecreator/Cassie cleans up

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 deleted as a hoax - it is clear that the book it describes is, at best, not published, so that it is not a potential encyclopedia article, and the author has been using it to support hoax entries in the mainspace. JohnCD (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lexiecreator/Cassie cleans up[edit]

No evidence that this book exists, and User:Lexiecreator has been entering the link into several articles.[1][2][3][4] Fences&Windows 02:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominated. Crafty (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone above. Dr.K.^praxis_logos 03:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete because the book exists. I know the author and they can't put it on any links except for this one. User talk:Lexiecreator 8:20, 5 December 2009
Keep as {{userspace draft}}. The page needs reviews or discussions of the book that have been published in reliable sources, and will not survive in article space without them. - Eastmain (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. This userspace draft has been edited by its creator within the last few days. I urge Lexiecreator to locate reliable sources and move the article to the mainspace, however, particularly if he/she wants to link to it from other articles. If Lexiecreator continues disruptively linking to this userspace draft from mainspace articles, a block would be appropriate. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any Google hits, let alone reliable sources. This was made up in school one day. Fences&Windows 16:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that statement, but I'm not sure that's a valid argument at MfD. If this was AfD I would definitely favor deletion per WP:MADEUP and WP:V. But this is not AfD, and this draft is not in the mainspace. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand I am completely sure this is a valid argument at MfD, AfD and everywhere in Wikipedia because it concerns an editor using their time for writing fictitious or non-notable stuff, which is a waste of bandwidth and effort and in no way promotes building Wikipedia. I thought that we are here to build an Encyclopaedia not write about fictitious books with zero ghits i.e. hoaxes (WP:CSD#G3). Check the history of MFD; it is full of deleted fictional stuff. Bands, people, tennis players. This is not better in any way. Dr.K.^praxis_logos 17:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but such cases at MfD are typically blatant hoaxes or clear fictions. The creator of this page contends that this is not a hoax, and since the alleged hoax is not blatant, I'm reluctant to delete a userspace draft that is (I hope) in the process of being sourced before being moved to the mainspace. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern and your gentler approach to this. But Google has already rendered its verdict about the notability of this subject. Zero ghits means that this is not a viable article. Is it a hoax? Tough question. Maybe not. In any case it is rather apparent that this is not a benefit to Wikipedia. Dr.K.^praxis_logos 19:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also understand and appreciate your position on this. If you are confident that this is a hoax, you may tag it as G3 (I won't remove it), but I personally wouldn't feel confident enough to delete this page, particularly because it's in userspace. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not in such a hurry. I am willing to AGF that this is not a hoax. I will defer to the outcome of this MFD, whatever it may be. I also share your concern about the degrees of freedom that should be allowed in userspace, so I would not like to push the envelope against user rights in that regard. However, on balance, I think that a future AfD on the same topic is probably not really needed. Thank you for your well taken points. Take care. Dr.K.^praxis_logos 20:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concern However, now that I think about it, have we considered that the "characters" in the "book" may be real people and that since some of the characters are described as "mean" and others that "they have a special bond" with their math teacher, this may be an attack page in disguise? I should think that in this case we may well have to err on the side of caution and delete this under CSD#G10. Dr.K.^praxis_logos 21:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Speedy was declined by JohnCD. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment JohnCD explained on my talk that he will !vote "delete" unless an ISBN number and other such data are produced. But neither he nor I think that these details are forthcoming. I am still concerned about the details presented on this user's page but let the system take its course now. Dr.K.^praxis_logos 21:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent and e/c)Delete. I have declined the speedy, because I doubt that these are real people, and in any case it is not very defamatory. However the only way this page would be acceptable under the userpage policy is if it is being used to develop an encyclopedia article about a real, published book. Searches find no trace of such a book, and I think it likely the user is writing it him/herself; but to be fair I have asked the user, if the book is real, to provide details like author, publisher, ISBN. Should those be forthcoming, I may change my !vote; but if there is no such real book, there is no point letting the user go on working on this page. JohnCD (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This user has also tried to to add information about a film starring Valerie Poxleitner based on the book and got reverted. The film is obviously a hoax. Can the book be far behind? They are also the author of Lexie, In High School and Tiffany the Superstar deleted under WP:CSD#A1, WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G3 respectively. I suggest a block of the user and deletion of the current article under WP:CSD#G3. Dr.K.^praxis_logos 23:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Because this is looking more and more like a hoax, I've struck my "keep" vote above. Feel free to tag with G3 if you think the hoax is sufficiently blatant. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks. But I already did my tagging for the day. I try to keep my failed tag attempts to a minimum and I don't want to take yet another chance, at least not for today :) Dr.K.^praxis_logos 00:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think it's a hoax. No one can just create a Wikipedia page like that off head. It must be real. User:Lexiecreator 8:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, people can and often do "just create a Wikipedia page like that". I am assuming good faith by giving you a chance to show that it is a real, published book by telling us author's name, publisher, publication date, ISBN number. If you do not do that within 24 hours, the page will be deleted. If the book has not been published, it doesn't matter whether it exists or not, it doesn't qualify to get a Wikipedia article and there is no point your writing a userpage about it. JohnCD (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2009 (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.