Talk:Yalghaar

Requested move 30 March 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: procedural close (articles should be approved by AfC first). &mdash; Music1201  talk  00:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Yalghaar → Yalghaar – Not sure why an article which has been around since July 2014 suddenly is moved to the draft namespace without prior discussion. Doesn't look correct to me. Stefan2 (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * On face of it support' unless 17:18, 29 March 2016‎ ( moved page Yalghaar to Draft:Yalghaar: Incubating until release date is announced) some good reason provided. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment This article needs much improvement. There is no information about its delay. It was first scheduled for release on 25 December but was delayed . No information is added about the release. It could be confusing for some readers.--  Musa  Talk  17:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Just because a film goes on hiatus does not mean that the article needs to be incubated. Even if the film is cancelled, does not mean the article is incubated, since we have articles on cancelled films. If the article meets notability, it can rest in articlespace, if it doesn't or is of poor quality, then the article could be incubated -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 02:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I said it needs improvement. Once it is expanded it should be moved back. There is no full information in the article. It could be incomprehensible for some readers who don't know about the sources. I didn't said that delete it or incubate it forever.-- Musa  Talk  11:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTFINISHED Wikipedia is not a fait-accompli, articles are not "finished", so needing improvement and missing information is not the same as poor quality. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

this was moved from ArticleSpace into DRAFTspace, ; it was in article space for over a year before that. So going through AfC seems to be incorrect, as this is a WP:BRD reversal proposal -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 04:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid the close is wrong. IP:70.51.46.39's arguments are correct and in accordance with WP policies and established practice. The closer's idea that this should go through AFC shows ignorance of the purpose and functioning of AFC. It's not AFC's function to decide whether a move from mainspace to draftspace was correct or not. AFC only reviews new drafts on the request of the original author. In fact in this case the reason given for Draftification "Incubating until release date is announced" is utterly unacceptable. This page should be moved back to mainspace without further delay. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Dodger67, see also User talk:Music1201. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @Stefan2 given that User:Music1201 has been actively editing since my post above (in which I had correctly pinged them) we may reasonably (and with AGF) conclude that he/she is intentionally ignoring this discussion. Are you (Stefan2) willing to take this matter to WP:Move review? I'm afraid I'm rather too busy for the next few days to give it the attention it needs. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I just came across this and I must agree that the close was inappropriate. Omni Flames   let's talk about it  06:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * When I initially discovered the page move to the draft namespace, my immediate thought was that the move was inappropriate and that the page should be moved back again, but since I assumed that the moving user would have a different opinion, I decided that it was better to discuss the matter first. I think that it looks very strange to close a discussion with the rationale that discussion is the wrong forum for disputing controversial page moves.
 * Note that the infobox image was deleted by as a non-free image unused in the article namespace. Now that the page is back in the article namespace again, the image should be undeleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Like I have said before, you can revert my close if you thought it was inappropriate. &mdash; Music1201  talk  20:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)