User:Balloonman/CSD Survey/1.3
| Quicklinks |
|---|
| Other Excellent articles on CSD |
Original Article
[edit]max is a boy who lives in vancouver, he is known as the panda, his friend pierre is called happy hippo because he is very very very very happy, somtimes happy hippo likes to play tag with scronny the tiger and turds
Nomination Criteria
[edit]G1 Patent nonsense. Pages consisting purely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history. This does not include poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, poorly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes; some of these, however, may be deleted as vandalism in blatant cases.
PATENT NONSENSE is defined as: Total nonsense, i.e., text or random characters that have no assignable meaning at all. This includes sequences such as "sdfgdsfkgdshgdkhgdsklhsklgroflmaolololol;;;'dsfgdfg", in which keys of the keyboard have been pressed with no regard for what is typed. Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever.
Deletion Options
[edit]| rationale | Count | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Agree with ratioinal to speedy delete. | 18 | 20.2 |
| Disagree with rational. G1 explicitly excludes "poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, poorly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes", but deletable by other criteria. | 66 | 74.2 |
| Disagree with rational, patent nonsense requires text to be "so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever", but this is a case where IAR applies. | 4 | 4.5 |
| Disagree with speedy deletion (should be PRODDED, sent to AFD, or kept.) | 1 | 1.1 |
Survey Comments
[edit]| Common rationale | Count |
|---|---|
| A7 | 13 |
| A1 | 2 |
| G3 | 5 |
- A1 (no context), G10 (attack), G3 (vandalism), but the article does "make sense". Again, no need to educate a tagger.
- Fairly incoherent but I wouldn't G1 it. Could reasonably be an A7 bio and/or a G10 due to the "turds" comment.
- Unable to determine who this might be about, no chance to write stub. Delete as nn-bio.
- Should be speedy deleted under G3, vandalism, assuming there is no better version in page history
- Fits "incoherent text" quite nicely.
- G10 if the person is identifiable, G3 if they aren't
- Again, I would use test page.
- A7, plus weak claims for G3, G10, and A1
- Has meaningful content. Should be deleted as an A7, a test or vandalism, depending on prior behaviour by the author.
- Probably G3, blatant misinformation. Also likely works under G10.
Balloonman's analysis
[edit]This article could actually be speedied under a number of criteria.
It was deleted per G1, which is not a misapplication of G1. Just because the article contains sentences that are semi-coherent does not mean that the article is coherent.
A7 is possible, but I do not believe it is the correct category. People who suggested it did so with the belief that Max is a real person. I'm not 100% that this is a valid assumption. Max could just as realistically be a fictional character.
A1 thus becomes a strong contender because there is not enough information to know what the context of this article is. But, is there enough information to identify the subject? Possibly.
G3 is probably the best reason to delete.