Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Narathiwat Province/Duplicate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Per RL0919's contribution, attribution requirements are satisfied, and there is no reason to keep this. JohnCD (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Narathiwat Province/Duplicate[edit]

Someone took a duplicate article and then moved it to the talkspace. I just merged its content into the article. Since this is an unusual situation, I'm not sure if this is a housekeeping delete, or if this requires a redirect. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Nothing links to it, so I think that deleting would be fine. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 05:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, I was mainly concerned about attribution requirements, per Wikipedia:Merge and delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dondegroovily (talkcontribs) 13:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and replace it with a notice explaining that its history contains content that was merged into the main article. Also provide a link to it from the Talk:Narathiwat Province page. I use a similar approach when I need to preserve page history that has been deleted after a page move, such as at Talk:St. Martin's University/Old history. Graham87 14:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You here created a WP:merge and delete situation. Best to do a history merge. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, because that would introduce overlapping edits. Graham87 01:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Doesn't that just make it one of those dreaded history merges? Your offered solution is a less ideal but more practical solution. Remind the user that we much prefer that pages be edited directly, not via sandbox forks. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Thankfully, the user who created this draft already incorporated the additions into the article in this diff back in February 2008, a few days after the draft was first created. Although the changes were subsequently reverted, they are in the history, so attribution requirements for licensing should be satisfied. Since the rest of this page's history is just tags proposing mergers or deletions, I believe it can be safely deleted. --RL0919 (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2010 (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.