- 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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn; situation resolved by Duffbeerforme. (non-admin closure) — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 13:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Draft:Al Clark (producer) (2)
This was Al Clark (producer), but there was also a better draft in the queue. This page was moved into draft space, and the information from it was merged into the better draft, which has been promoted into article space. This is no longer needed. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- Why not redirect? — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - Excellent question, User:SmokeyJoe, and I do not object to a redirect. However, my reason for proposing instead to delete is that a redirect is primarily meant to help the reader find what they are probably looking for. There is no reason why the reader would look for any form of Al Clark (2), or Al Clark (producer) (2), or Draft: Al Clark (producer) (2). If we decide that we would prefer to do the cleanup via a redirect from nowhere, a redirect from nowhere is okay. But that is my explanation for proposing a delete instead. Robert McClenon ( talk) 09:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep and return this to the mainspace. This should never have been moved. If you thought a newer version was better then you should have merged that into the existing mainspace page. Additionally if you merged content from this page then this page is required. It would be nice if an admin clean up Robert's SNAFU.
duffbeerforme (
talk) 10:36, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- Agree. If I read this correctly,
Robert McClenon
moved the over three years old article out of mainspace, into draft space, and now wants to violate attribution requirements and delete it? Was the page a new unreviewed page when draftified, as required by
WP:DRAFTIFY? --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 12:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- having just read DRAFTIFY I wish to exercise my "right to object to moving the page, and to have the matter discussed at WP:AfD." I also ask Robert to read it too and note the requirement to inform the author. duffbeerforme ( talk) 13:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- Agree. If I read this correctly,
Robert McClenon
moved the over three years old article out of mainspace, into draft space, and now wants to violate attribution requirements and delete it? Was the page a new unreviewed page when draftified, as required by
WP:DRAFTIFY? --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 12:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - It has been merged in with the other draft. I will note that I have asked more than once at AFC about what to do when there are two versions, and have gotten conflicting advice, but I think that what I have done is consistent with what I have been told to do. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - As to those who want to Speedy Keep this, do they want to delete the additional content that the other draft had? Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - Okay. It appears that I made a mistake in dealing with this particular situation in which there were two articles by different people on the person. My concern is that the information that is in the old article and the information that is in the new article should both be included in the final article. I'm willing to take a
Wiki Trout on this. Will someone please tell me how to handle this the next time I encounter it?
Robert McClenon (
talk) 19:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think, tentatively, that the first author of a topic in mainspace should always get that credit, and a later created draft should be redirected with advice to merge. Draft writers should always be expected to search mainspace. On the other side, mainspace writers may ignore DraftSpace, a mainspace creation dating after a draftspace creation gets the credit, as long as the mainspace never even read the draft. So, the redundant draft should always be redirected to the mainspace title, the question being whether to merge anything from the draft into the article. A rule couched in WP:COPYRIGHTS safety is to not delete anything on a topic covered by an extant article, but to only redirect. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'm taking the above as a withdraw and am going to fix things up. duffbeerforme ( talk) 10:37, 9 September 2018 (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: withdrawn; situation resolved by Duffbeerforme. (non-admin closure) — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 13:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Draft:Al Clark (producer) (2)
This was Al Clark (producer), but there was also a better draft in the queue. This page was moved into draft space, and the information from it was merged into the better draft, which has been promoted into article space. This is no longer needed. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- Why not redirect? — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - Excellent question, User:SmokeyJoe, and I do not object to a redirect. However, my reason for proposing instead to delete is that a redirect is primarily meant to help the reader find what they are probably looking for. There is no reason why the reader would look for any form of Al Clark (2), or Al Clark (producer) (2), or Draft: Al Clark (producer) (2). If we decide that we would prefer to do the cleanup via a redirect from nowhere, a redirect from nowhere is okay. But that is my explanation for proposing a delete instead. Robert McClenon ( talk) 09:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep and return this to the mainspace. This should never have been moved. If you thought a newer version was better then you should have merged that into the existing mainspace page. Additionally if you merged content from this page then this page is required. It would be nice if an admin clean up Robert's SNAFU.
duffbeerforme (
talk) 10:36, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- Agree. If I read this correctly,
Robert McClenon
moved the over three years old article out of mainspace, into draft space, and now wants to violate attribution requirements and delete it? Was the page a new unreviewed page when draftified, as required by
WP:DRAFTIFY? --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 12:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- having just read DRAFTIFY I wish to exercise my "right to object to moving the page, and to have the matter discussed at WP:AfD." I also ask Robert to read it too and note the requirement to inform the author. duffbeerforme ( talk) 13:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- Agree. If I read this correctly,
Robert McClenon
moved the over three years old article out of mainspace, into draft space, and now wants to violate attribution requirements and delete it? Was the page a new unreviewed page when draftified, as required by
WP:DRAFTIFY? --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 12:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - It has been merged in with the other draft. I will note that I have asked more than once at AFC about what to do when there are two versions, and have gotten conflicting advice, but I think that what I have done is consistent with what I have been told to do. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - As to those who want to Speedy Keep this, do they want to delete the additional content that the other draft had? Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - Okay. It appears that I made a mistake in dealing with this particular situation in which there were two articles by different people on the person. My concern is that the information that is in the old article and the information that is in the new article should both be included in the final article. I'm willing to take a
Wiki Trout on this. Will someone please tell me how to handle this the next time I encounter it?
Robert McClenon (
talk) 19:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think, tentatively, that the first author of a topic in mainspace should always get that credit, and a later created draft should be redirected with advice to merge. Draft writers should always be expected to search mainspace. On the other side, mainspace writers may ignore DraftSpace, a mainspace creation dating after a draftspace creation gets the credit, as long as the mainspace never even read the draft. So, the redundant draft should always be redirected to the mainspace title, the question being whether to merge anything from the draft into the article. A rule couched in WP:COPYRIGHTS safety is to not delete anything on a topic covered by an extant article, but to only redirect. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'm taking the above as a withdraw and am going to fix things up. duffbeerforme ( talk) 10:37, 9 September 2018 (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.