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.
I understand what you are saying, but this was not a
WP:DRAFTOBJECT - the original page was moved to draft during NPP and the original page was deleted R2. Rather than objecting or discussing the editor ignored the drafted page and recreated the page and it came up at NPP again. Deleting this page is a matter of housekeeping. Thanks
Bruxton (
talk)
20:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep: this appears to be notable by the zh sources, and per
WP:DRAFTOBJECT, the draft process is not required. Recreating the page is an attempt to object, even if the editor did not do so "correctly". No copyright issues, as there was only one substantial author to the draft article. The draft can probably be redirected to the mainspace article.
HouseBlastertalk15:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)reply
@
HouseBlaster: NPP is tough work, and situations like this create more work for reviewers, AfD participants and admins.
WP:DRAFTOBJECT is not a policy or guideline it is an essay. And it specifically says: If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace. None of that happened.
Bruxton (
talk)
21:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Bruxton: I am well aware that NPP is tough work. I am a NPR myself. Yes, this creates more work for us. But this version of the article has an additional paragraph not present in the draft. As I said, this topic appears to be notable. If this is deleted, we are harming the encyclopedia by deleting good content for purely bureaucratic reasons. The quote above instructs the editor performing the draftification to move the page back to the mainspace, if an editor raises an objection. It does not say that someone has to explicitly object for the page to be moved back to the namespace.HouseBlastertalk21:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. AfD is a forum for establishing notability, not addressing user conduct. The entry should not have been sent here if the objection is procedural and not about the topic’s notability.
Innisfree987 (
talk)
12:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
(edit conflict?)Keep -- The content of the article is somewhat slender of content, other than her promotions within the imperial court. She was outranked by 3 empresses; 4 more senior concubines (all with articles) and had three others of similar rank, of whom one other has an article. Procedural deficiencies are not a ground for deletion.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:15, 8 September 2022 (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 article'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 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.
I understand what you are saying, but this was not a
WP:DRAFTOBJECT - the original page was moved to draft during NPP and the original page was deleted R2. Rather than objecting or discussing the editor ignored the drafted page and recreated the page and it came up at NPP again. Deleting this page is a matter of housekeeping. Thanks
Bruxton (
talk)
20:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep: this appears to be notable by the zh sources, and per
WP:DRAFTOBJECT, the draft process is not required. Recreating the page is an attempt to object, even if the editor did not do so "correctly". No copyright issues, as there was only one substantial author to the draft article. The draft can probably be redirected to the mainspace article.
HouseBlastertalk15:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)reply
@
HouseBlaster: NPP is tough work, and situations like this create more work for reviewers, AfD participants and admins.
WP:DRAFTOBJECT is not a policy or guideline it is an essay. And it specifically says: If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace. None of that happened.
Bruxton (
talk)
21:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Bruxton: I am well aware that NPP is tough work. I am a NPR myself. Yes, this creates more work for us. But this version of the article has an additional paragraph not present in the draft. As I said, this topic appears to be notable. If this is deleted, we are harming the encyclopedia by deleting good content for purely bureaucratic reasons. The quote above instructs the editor performing the draftification to move the page back to the mainspace, if an editor raises an objection. It does not say that someone has to explicitly object for the page to be moved back to the namespace.HouseBlastertalk21:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. AfD is a forum for establishing notability, not addressing user conduct. The entry should not have been sent here if the objection is procedural and not about the topic’s notability.
Innisfree987 (
talk)
12:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
(edit conflict?)Keep -- The content of the article is somewhat slender of content, other than her promotions within the imperial court. She was outranked by 3 empresses; 4 more senior concubines (all with articles) and had three others of similar rank, of whom one other has an article. Procedural deficiencies are not a ground for deletion.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:15, 8 September 2022 (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 article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.