Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drascombe
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.
[edit] Drascombe
The result was Withdrawn Honestly I didn't intend to stir up such a hornet's nest. —Dgiest c 16:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
This is a stub with only one real revision in the edit history: A one line definition. There is a much better version of the article at User:Colinwatt/Sandbox which I wanted to move here to preserve its edit history. I had filed it at Wikipedia:Requested moves as uncontroversial, but one editor is opposing on procedural grounds that I should take to AfD. I cited WP:IAR but here we are. Please delete this stub so I can move in a real article. —Dgiest c 08:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Your version is MUCH better Dgies. Harryboyles 09:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep: Wrong process, and raises no policy-actionable rationale for deletion under WP:DP. What I actually suggested three times on two pages (my talk page, and WP:RM where nominator tried improperly to speedy it as noncontroversial, even after it was controverted), was for nominator to take this to Wikipedia:Proposed mergers, and warned against going the AfD route. I don't like being misrepresented as supporting things I clearly oppose, thank you. There is no justifiable reason to destroy the edit history of the original stub, which was a good faith effort on another editor's part to create a meaningful stub, simply so that the author of the better article can falsely appear to be the first author to address the topic on WP. I can't see any policy-based reason that this stub should be successfully AfD'd just because someone would rather use this process to do a roundabout merge than use the proper one. WP:PM exists for a reason. The stub has certainly needed copyediting, and its author didn't understand what talk pages are for, but that's no reason to preted he/she doesn't exist. Oh! I take part of that back! I was the present nominator who has added signed comments to the article, not the original stub author! I have tried really hard to WP:AGF with this nominator, but am left with no conclusion to draw but that this is a self-serving vanity deletion - based on this twice-in-a-row refusal to use PM, on blatantly mischaracterizing me as advising this AfD, and on previous debate here and here in which the objections to nominator's trying to "take over" the article and obliterate its past history were never addressed, at all, and responded to with complaints that I was "making a big deal" out of something trivial. I even offered to immediately support a proposed merge. This outright usurpation request should be sent to WP:PM where it belongs. PS to Harryboyles: Which version is better has no relevance. Although of course the nominator's version surely is better, that's not what's at issue; I don't think anyone in their right mind would oppose a merge. The issue is these repeated attempts to bypass policy processes, not to mention fundamental misunderstanding of WP:IAR, demonstrating (see details at previous discussion links, particularly the 2nd one) an unusually high disregard for WP process and policy in the first place. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This has nothing to do with deletion but with a desire for a WP:SPLICE of the revision history of a sandbox. Editors write articles in their sandboxes all the time and post when they have good content. The revision history of that endeavor is fairly irrelevant and is akin to writing the article offline, the only difference being that an edit history happens to be created for the former. Simply click edit in this article and post your much better material as an expansion. I suggest you then immediately post to T:TDYK.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:32, 22 February 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.
