Talk:Daniel Seavey

Feedback from New Page Review process
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: @TechnoSquirrel69, @Taking Out The Trash and for future reviewers until the Draft:Daniel Seavey page is dealt with by an admin:
 * I've requested a history merge of Draft:Daniel Seavey to Daniel Seavey, as someone seems to have mistakenly moved Daniel Seavey to Draft:Daniel Seavey recently. Daniel Seavey was then deleted by an admin as it was a cross-namespace redirect. Daniel Seavey was then relatively quickly recreated as a redirect to the relevant main topic, which I then reviewed as patrolled a short while later.
 * As it currently stands, Draft:Daniel Seavey was a former article before it became a redirect before all of this happened. It has edit history dating back to 2015, which I think is grounds for keeping it.
 * Sorry if this is confusing or inaccurate, I don't have access to the deletion logs as I'm not an admin, I've only stumbled upon this page as a new page reviewer.

Fork99 (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @Fastily: pinging involved admin who deleted Daniel Seavey per WP:CSD before it was recreated. Fork99 (talk) 00:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information, Fork99; this is a weird situation for sure. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Does anyone know if a round-robin page move would make more sense in this case actually? Then, Draft:Daniel Seavey can be deleted with trivial edit history. Considering the lack of admins willing to deal with the currently 4 requests for history merges. Fork99 (talk) 04:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh but I just realised this talk discussion would be deleted under that scenario... what have I gotten into. Fork99 (talk) 04:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Novem Linguae: thank you for fixing it all up, much appreciated! Fork99 (talk) 06:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)