- 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 redirect to Bessbrook landmine attack. Only significant history is from the creator, so there's no need to histmerge. Primefac (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- Draft:Bessbrook Landmine Attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No longer needed. Replaced by Bessbrook Landmine Attack in mainspace. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- History merge. Robert McClenon improperly did a backdoor pseudo-deletion by unilaterally moving to draftspace. The draft is part of the edit history of the mainspace article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - First, User:SmokeyJoe is being less than accurate. I did not do a "backdoor pseudo-deletion", but a move to draft space of an article that was very unready for article space, in place of PPRODding it, in order to allow the author to add the other sections. The author was creating a placeholder in article space rather than building the article in draft space or user space. The option of moving to draft space has been much discussed at New Page Patrol. What complicated things is that the author, rather than filling in the missing sections in draft space and moving back to article space, created the article again in article space. However, there is no need for a history merge because the history of the article is self-sufficient. I do not object to a history merge, but one is not needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- Support deletion of this draft as duplicative of a better entry in mainspace (if this draft were submitted through AfC, it'd be declined as a dup). I don't particularly have an opinion on history merge. But moving to draftspace is a legitimate option for WP:NPP reviewers (see e.g. the flow chart on that page), there was nothing improper here--and not even an effort to delete but rather an effort to give editor time to expand a submission that likely would have been deleted in the form it was in. Editor just happened to proceed by expanding in a new mainspace page rather than picking back up with this draft. So now the draft can be deleted. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2017 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.