Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta Bombing Division

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. The sentences scan, but it's basically gibberish. Herostratus 02:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delta Bombing Division

Delta Bombing Division (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This a complete nonsense hoax article. The db-nonsense template was removed by an admin who I believe didn't read the article. The prod template was removed by an IP user, so now we move on to the AFD. Read the article carefully and you'll see nonsense falsehoods such as "scrounging for spare bombers in France in 1942" and the division being replaced by bi-planes. Also, Google turns up nothing on the name. Hatch68 21:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete per nom, creator being a vandalism-only account, and WP:SNOW. Pan Dan 21:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete while I would not call it nonsense either, it appears to be a hoax, therefore non-verifiable (WP:PN specifically states that a hoax is not nonsense simply because it is a hoax). Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
It sounds like a minor semantical difference to me, but I'll go along with the consensus. Hatch68 21:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete I've read it and the word 'nonsense' seems to sum it up admirably. Nick mallory 02:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm the admin who removed the tag, though I did actually read the article. It's simply not patent nonsense. Distinctions like one kind of plane replacing another don't qualify as "nonsense" to me. And linking a name to a disambig page is a common error in new aritcles. Given the research by the nom, it does appear to be a possible hoax (which is not a speedy deletion reason). If it is unverifiable, I'm fine with deletion. I've seen the nonsense tag applied with what appears to be great haste lately, and have removed them when the article does not fit the criteria. My doing so isn't a reflection on the quality of the article, or the tagger. Dina 17:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Please also note that the creator is a vandal account. Pan Dan 23:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment All the more reason to tag articles with the appropriate tags, and warn users that you have tagged the article (which did not happen in this case). If I see an article tagged as patent nonsense that is not, I will remove the tag. If I see a user that has been warned the appropriate about of times for vandalism & bad-article creation, I will block them. A lot of stuff ends up in the WP:CSD that is simply not speediable. That doesn't mean it's not deletable. This article will end up being deleted. But, in my view, "patent nonsense" should not require a google search to identify. Dina 00:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying Dina, but it instantly jumped out as "nonsense" to me. A British officer scrounging bombers in France in 1941? France fell in 1940 to the Germans. Replacing bombers with bi-planes in WW2? I honestly wasn't aware that "nonsense" for speedy deletions was defined so narrowly on Wikipedia. The verbage used on the templates is a little different from what's on WP:PN. Hatch68 00:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
A different admin might have made a different call here -- I'm not trying to dig in my heels and be difficult, honestly. It's all somewhat subjective, and what should be the subject of this debate is the value of the article, not of my action, or yours, in regards to it (since we both acted in good faith obviously, what would be the point?) It didn't read as nonsense to me, and that is the tag I find most frequently badly applied. When I run through the WP:CSD I sometimes delete, sometimes let articles lie, and sometimes remove tags I find to not match the articles in question. Let the debate run and I'll close it, barring any new evidence that it's not a hoax. Cheers. Dina 00:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not a proerp speedy, and I have undelted it and removed the speedy delete tag. DES (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
It may not have been a proper speedy, but I think WP:SNOW is an appropriate policy to use in judging this case. Hatch68 01:00, 26 April 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.