- 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: Speedied. Blatant hoax (CSD G3). Eight of the nine books cited do not exist based on multiple searches (for example, there are no copies in Worldcat, meaning that none of the thousands of participating libraries hold copies). None of the proper names contained in the article show up anywhere else, and there is ample further evidence that the content is nonsense, such as the anachronistic references to the Gregorian Calendar and to Lord of the Rings. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Linn Ùr
My strong suspicion is that this article is a hoax, but in an excess of caution, I'm not tagging it for speedy deletion. This draft was created on November 18 by a new editor who hasn't edited since. The draft was tagged as WP:G1, which I declined as that criterion obviously doesn't apply. However, the tagging editor has now slapped a hoax template on it and commented on the draft Talk page. Apparently, the editor is confused about the two criteria (G1 and G3) and equates nonsense with hoax.
Some of the claims in the draft are true, e.g., Linn Ur does mean new age. However, the crux of it appears made up. I know nothing about the subject area, but I can find no evidence that the sources exist, let alone support the claims. They are all offline sources, so it is harder to look at the pages cited, but I took the first four sources and just did a Google search, and none exists. Usually, with such sources, even if I can't find an online version of the book, I can find proof that the book exists.
For all those reasons, I'm hoping that some editors with better access to certain tools and perhaps more knowledge of the subject will be able to decide the truth of the draft. Bbb23 ( talk) 13:36, 2 December 2022 (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.
- 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: Speedied. Blatant hoax (CSD G3). Eight of the nine books cited do not exist based on multiple searches (for example, there are no copies in Worldcat, meaning that none of the thousands of participating libraries hold copies). None of the proper names contained in the article show up anywhere else, and there is ample further evidence that the content is nonsense, such as the anachronistic references to the Gregorian Calendar and to Lord of the Rings. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Linn Ùr
My strong suspicion is that this article is a hoax, but in an excess of caution, I'm not tagging it for speedy deletion. This draft was created on November 18 by a new editor who hasn't edited since. The draft was tagged as WP:G1, which I declined as that criterion obviously doesn't apply. However, the tagging editor has now slapped a hoax template on it and commented on the draft Talk page. Apparently, the editor is confused about the two criteria (G1 and G3) and equates nonsense with hoax.
Some of the claims in the draft are true, e.g., Linn Ur does mean new age. However, the crux of it appears made up. I know nothing about the subject area, but I can find no evidence that the sources exist, let alone support the claims. They are all offline sources, so it is harder to look at the pages cited, but I took the first four sources and just did a Google search, and none exists. Usually, with such sources, even if I can't find an online version of the book, I can find proof that the book exists.
For all those reasons, I'm hoping that some editors with better access to certain tools and perhaps more knowledge of the subject will be able to decide the truth of the draft. Bbb23 ( talk) 13:36, 2 December 2022 (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.