Motel (version 2) – No action taken. Article has already been userfied. Trout K7L for pulling the DRV trigger less than 20 minutes after an initial request for assistance. – -- RoySmith(talk) 13:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Page was invalidly listed as WP:CSD#G6, a category which only applies to uncontested deletions for technical reasons (such as deleting a redirect with no history to make way for a page move). Motel (version 2) has multiple revisions of a 25 kilobyte article in the page history and, because it was moved to this odd name during a currently-active content dispute, is anything but uncontroversial. The discussion of its fate belongs in WP:AfD and company, not in speedy deletion, as it was put at this location deliberately to preserve the edit history. Controversial items don't belong in CSD#G6. K7L (talk) 05:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one that submitted that G6. The deletion was for a redirect that was only there in place of a slightly edited remnant of a copy-paste article duplication. It appeared to be abandoned, and had been converted into a useless implausible redirect. It only existed because of the technical need to move the copy-pasted text somewhere to get it out of the way of a revert of an undiscussed move of the original article. I said all this in the explanation submitted for the G6 request. I still believe the article was nothing more than a useless remnant. There is an ongoing dispute about the Motel article and another newly created article Motels in the United States, but I didn't see any ongoing dispute about that particular content that was sitting at Motel (version 2). It had already been sidelined and left in the boneyard, and I saw no suggestion to resurrect it. I still don't see K7L suggesting to actually use its content for an article, and obviously no one thinks we need an article called Motel (version 2). —BarrelProof (talk) 06:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem restoring it and I'll do just that, but I'll instead put it in your userspace. The reason for this is because as a redirect it doesn't entirely serve a purpose and your proposed changes to the article were met with controversy, so I don't think that it should be posted back to the main article until a consensus is formed to either accept your copy or merge data from the two articles. I also agreed with the rationale for the speedy and while it wasn't a full day, it was in the mainspace for a fairly long time. I do wish that you'd asked for me to restore it on my userspace before taking this to DRV (as is protocol) since I don't have a true issue restoring it in at least some form or fashion. However as far as the content in the article goes, there is dispute over the edits so I'll again state that you should probably work on this in your userspace and then open up a discussion on the main talk page. The thing about making big changes like this is that in most cases you will need to have some sort of discussion somewhere before making huge changes- and to hold discussions before making more controversial changes. From what I can see here, you believed that motel put undue weight on the USA and then without actually discussing this, moved it to Motels in the United States. You then created this version in the place of the old Motel article. It was reversed by Anthony Appleyard, who then appears to have mostly reverted everything back and moved it to Motel (version 2) as a placeholder. After that point you moved a chunk of data out of the main motel article to the US specific article. I'll move this to your userspace, but I do think that you need to hold a discussion on the motel talk page to see if your version of the article is the one that should be accepted. What you've done here is pretty much 86 an entire article that has been in the mainspace for years and you've made several edits on the article that could be seen as edit warring. With this in mind, I have to say that moving and removing chunks of the article really could not have been seen as uncontroversial, so you really should have made userspace copies first and then opened up a discussion before making such huge changes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, the choice to move the original article to Motels in the United States as an uncontroversial move was an improper one since given the article's history it was extremely likely that it would be seen as controversial. I don't think that the now userfied article at User:K7L/Motel (version 2) should be moved to the mainspace until there is an agreement that it should supplant the main article- a discussion that should be held at the talk page for the motel article. This isn't entirely AfD in scope since they'll likely say that it should be userfied and a discussion opened on the article's talk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do see where you asked for it now, but you really didn't wait very long for me to reply... You waited about 11 minutes before escalating things to DRV. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
