Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:2003 Iowa highway jurisdictional transfer

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 Speedy Keep As there is active development, a merge to the main article will be required in the future when this is ready to go live. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:2003 Iowa highway jurisdictional transfer[edit]

This has been run since Feb 2015 as a alternative version of the mainspace article at 2003 Iowa highway jurisdictional transfer. That violates WP:UP#COPIES Legacypac (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to have been edited substantially. Should it be merged? VQuakr (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The creator that left the mainspace article and created this alternative version should not be doing that. They can merge in the changes they like and then this should be deleted outright. We don't need draft space versions of live articles. Legacypac (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that copy/paste forks cause attribution issues. I am not clear on the reason for the MfD nom, though. This looks like a merge followed by housekeeping speedy. VQuakr (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The tables are fine and I believe in line with what every other article does. This will show up in the Iowa and US Roads projects article alerts based on their tagging. This is a basic case of WP:FAKEARTICLE. The editor is still active here though: if this is some draft version that being explored on that page, that's a plausible use but otherwise it seems like a temporary draft for an alternative version. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I decided to rework the article (from table format to a prose format, which I hope we can all agree is the better option) about 16 months ago. I admittedly write slowly, so I used the draft space so the main article wouldn't look like a half-assed work-in-progress for the next six years. Since I did not start the draft from an old version, the copy/paste fork attribution issue is moot. A history merge would fix that, no? I don't see the existence of both this slow-progressing draft and its main counterpart as contentious. If anything, it's guilty of qualifying for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G13. –Fredddie ™ 03:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G13 is only for AFC submission and this isn't eligible. Are you still working on it? If so, as I said above, I will change to keep then. The problem is when there's no discussion on the talk page and no evidence that it's been tried on the mainspace, we don't know if people actually think it is the better option (I have no idea why people would oppose but who the hell knows). Are there examples of jurisdictional transfer pages? I can't find any. I don't see where the Roads project has made any views about the format. I think we'd be better off with the mainspace version being half completed and perhaps others can work on it rather than just a single page change at some point in the future. It may be opposed and reverted or it may be considered a good idea and you'll have other encouraged to help you out. Either way, that's better to me than a draft you're handling on your own. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think about working on it every now and then, but it takes a lot to motivate me to write prose and very little to distract me away from it, so it's probably wise to say I'm not working on it. There are plenty of articles about former highways, and for the most part, they talk about the transfer process. The 2003 transfer was notable enough that it should have an article; roughly 7% of Iowa's state highway system was forcefully divested by the state en masse. It's in the plans to talk about the transfer itself, but like completing the draft, it just hasn't happened yet. –Fredddie ™ 03:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—let the creator do the work at his own pace. Imzadi 1979 → 03:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a work-in-progress draft that can eventually be merged back into the main article, but we should let the author (or anyone else willing to help) take the time to work on it rather than insist on a time limit for drafts. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 12:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This draft is a work-in-progress for a major revision of the main article. Vcap36 (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2016 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.