Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Raging Fire (band)

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: Delete. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Raging Fire (band)[edit]

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 15:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 09:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has not been submitted to AFC but has apparently been abandoned for more than a year. Delete in order to permit a more recent draft to be moved over it. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See User:ScrivenerBartleby/sandbox. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's been over a year with no improvement. The other draft could be moved to Draft:Raging Fire (band) (2) for now if you'd like. There's no actual reason to have it set at this page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the topic is worth creating, there is no justification in deleting the current version. If one draft is not to be merge to, or over, the other, then I recommend disambiguating by creation date (month, year). Is there a concern about article creation statistics motivating this nomination? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to make way for a move, then history merge the revisions up to February of the deleted content after the move proposed by the nominator has taken place, and merge any content that isn't in what is currently at User:ScrivenerBartleby/sandbox. I think that's the best option available.— Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This either doesn't make sense, or is too convoluted. A simple merge and redirect would suffice, a standard history merge is more than sufficient. The first author should not be denied recognition due to weird Wikipedia (AfC) workings. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 09:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 15:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't relist if you are a voter. Aside from relisting doing nothing but scrambling the list, relisting is administration should be kept separate from normal participation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: Again, see Wikipedia talk:Deletion process/Archive 9#Relisting process – Should relisting discussions automatically exclude users from any !voting in the discussion?. There is no rule against it (WP:RELIST being the relevant guideline). I decide whether it is appropriate on a case by case basis. If there were more users actively participating here at MfD, such as an activity level similar to AfD (or a better fraction of it), I would refrain. Unfortunately, there isn't, so the alternative would be to let discussions languish. I also disagree that it "do[es] nothing but scramble[s] the list", but that is more of an argument against relisting in general, so I'm not going to address it.— Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 11:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still Keep. History merge. The nomination appears to me to be in support of Articlecountitis and in recognition that the second of teh duplicates is better than the first. This is misguided. The second author should have built upon the first. Content forking should be discouraged, and deleting the older draft in favour of the later is to reward the content forker, to the extent that Articlecountitis matters. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History merge is administratively-heavy overkill. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have no reason to believe that the author of the second draft knew about the first. Is the commenter saying that authors of new drafts are required to check whether a draft exists, which would impose a burden on editors who simply want to create an article, or that reviewers should decline a better newer draft because there is an existing possibly abandoned draft? I would appreciate guidance as a reviewer as to what to do in this situation. The idea that the author of the second draft was content forking is biting the newbie. What is User:SmokeyJoe saying should be done? Are they trying to put a burden on new editors, which is unreasonable, or only to complicate the job of reviewers? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robert McClenon. Certainly I do not want to increase the burden on reviewers.

"authors of new drafts are required to check whether a draft exists"? No. It is just a very good idea.

If writing a draft on a topic assumed to be new to Wikipedia, doing a Wikipedia search of the topic title is a good idea. It is such a good idea that maybe it should be automagically done on creating the page. More importantly, searching for the topic in mainspace should be done. The one search will do both.

If there are two drafts on the same topic, I recommend you consider advising authors of both to consider merging. Whether the merge results in the newer being redirect to the older, or the lesser being redirect the better draft, I don't think we need a rule.

What should be done? I suggest: Move both drafts to Raging_Fire_(band)_Month_Year. Dating them by creation date. Draft:Raging Fire (band)_August_2015 and Draft:Raging Fire (band)_August_2016 Cross-reference them in a "See also" section. Advise interested editors to merge the two together. In this case (as to my reading, the second draft contains everything in the first), just convert Draft:Raging Fire (band)_August_2015 to a redirect to Draft:Raging Fire (band)_August_2016. When approved, move Draft:Raging Fire (band)_August_2016 to Raging Fire (band).

DraftSpace does not need to have mainspace-quality tidy titles, and draftspace redirects do not need to be cleaned up. Suffixing accidental forks with creation date makes it very understand what is what. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless the material in an old draft is actually used, there is no need to keep it when a better page is created, either in draft or in article space. I think normally someone wanting to do this should in fact make use of the material in the first draft, just as I do when I see an abandoned draft with potential, unless the work is so bad that literally nothing can be rescued. But if they have not used the material, is is just an abandoned draft. If they both want to contribute, either the versions should be merged, or they should pick one and cooperate. Nobody owns an article. Nobody owns an article title. Nobody owns a draft. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 17 October 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.