Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Lee Waters

 __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:  redirect to Lee Waters, where the history will be in case someone wants to work on a merger. -- Tavix ( talk ) 17:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Lee Waters


Draft submission, no longer necessary to retain. This was created last year, at a time when the subject was still only a candidate for political office, and was rejected twice on that basis -- then when he won the seat earlier this month, a new article was created by an established editor through the conventional editing process. Yet for no apparent reason, several days after that, another editor updated the stale draft and resubmitted it for AFC approval again. But since an article already exists and can be updated and revised as needed, there's no need of continuing to hang onto the old draft version anymore. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect per WP:ATD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in ATD that would be applicable to a situation like this... Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Lee Waters. WP:ATD is policy that encourages the use of non deletion solutions before resorting to deletion.  As this is an accidental content fork, redirection (with option merge before or after) is the standard solution.  Keeping the redirect solves for the anticipated recurrence of the same error, if someone has made the error once, there is a good change another will do the same.  Keeping the history available is default, if there is no actual problem with any version.  Sometimes a history merge is appropriate, but it is almost always overkill.  The creation of draftspace and encouragement of newcomers to go there instead of working in mainspace has led to the creation of a very large number of occidental content forks.  It is absurd to bring them all to MfD one at a time, that would make more work than the total benefit (which is small) of having draftspace at all.  I just recently created a thread at Wikipedia_talk:Drafts that covers exactly this sort of case.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. The closest relevant portion of deletion policy is Deletion_policy which states that an article with "potential" can be edited before either "graduating" to mainspace or ultimately being deleted. There is no indication that it will be graduating any time soon so deletion is in line with policy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Based on the existence of different references, then a merger and redirect makes more sense. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Clearly this is wrong. I would have been helpful if the nominator had mentioned, linked, the mainspace article.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect (if history merging then Merge and Delete); the draft contains numerous references that may be useful in the article. — xaosflux  Talk 01:34, 16 June 2016 (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.