Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Dakuku Peterside

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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: histmerge. to Dakuku Peterside &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Dakuku Peterside


Page was Prod’d in mainspace but the author removed the Prod. I had some serious issues with the page so I moved it to draft and tagged. Promotional issues, possible copyvio etc. Another editor has blanked the page. This should just be deleted now. Check history. Legacypac (talk) 02:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Put back in mainspace and list at AfD, where I suspect it will probably get deleted, but it deserves a proper review. Legacypac should self-ban himself from draftifications. The prod-removal means the author needs a discussion. That means AfD, not back-door redtaped deletion via DraftSpace. MfD is not suitable for reviews of articles for deletion, and this is an article that Legacypac is seeking to have deleted. The process to be used following a contest PROD is WP:AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Since he's held national office (Nigerian house of representatives), the subject rather obviously meets WP:NPOL and would pass an AfD. It has been copied back to mainspace since it was moved to draft, so now we need a histmerge to clean up the mess. I also do not see a PROD in the draft's history. VQuakr (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I’m not necessarily wanting the page deleted if the topic is notable as VQuakr notes. I’m just not seeing the point of having a blank draft hanging around. If an Admin can do a history merge, great. The new main-space page needs cleanup too. Legacypac (talk) 21:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As a short disclaimer, I'm only here because Legacypac posted on my talk page recently due to a dispute, and in confirming where I had encounter them before, I came across this. In reading this, I came across something which is one of my pet bugbears, namely the possibility of violating our contributor licencing terms by losing the attribution history. A look at my own contrib history will confirm this isn't the first time I've made a big deal over this since as far as I am concerned it is a very big deal and it really irks me when anyone seems to suggest it's okay for us to simply lose our contributors attribution history which the licence they agreed to release their content under generally requires. While yes, I am replying to Legacypac, I would have said the same whoever was the one who raised the issue. I haven't looked into the details, but it would be far preferable to keep a blank draft with the history around, then deleting and losing that history. Please remember we need to respect our contributors copyrights, which means we have to respect their licence terms. Unless you have looked at the history and confirmed that there is no attribution that needs to be preserved, it would be highly inappropriate for that history to be deleted. In other words, without a confirmation that it isn't needed, a history merge isn't just great, it is essential.  Deleting the empty draft is far, far, less important than ensuring that we do not lose the information required by our contributor licencing terms. If a history merge cannot be performed I presume because of parallel histories, but there is attribution history that needs to be preserved, another solution like moving the history to a subpage of the main space article or somewhere else would be the solution as it normally is.  Please take a read Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves while while directed at admins, note no where does it say it's acceptable to delete pages which have the attribution history needed by our licencing terms except in the very short term while dealing with something. In other words, the point of keeping the blank page around would be to preserve the contrib history, until someone deals with in a better way. Note also if there are copyvio concerns, the contrib history may also help in researching this, and at the very least will ensure we know who the one to warn is if there are problems.  Nil Einne (talk) 10:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * History merge, redirect to Dakuku Peterside to preserve incoming links, and renominate at AfD if wants to (although I will !vote keep as easily passes WP:NPOL). Perhaps also speedy close as Legacypac has kind of withdrawn and there's no point in a blank draft hanging around.  J  947 ( c ) (m)   01:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not recognize he meets WP:NPOL so I will not seek deletion of the mainspace page. A redirect should be enough on the draft. Legacypac (talk) 05:22, 30 October 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.