Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Martha Gellhorn

 __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 Martha Gellhorn. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Martha Gellhorn


This is a poorly written alternate version of a topic we have already have a mainspace article about -- and the existing article isn't a brand new thing recently created by somebody else, either, but has already existed for 15 years. Further, the creator has already been advised that the article already exists, but just ignored that and resubmitted the draft again for no apparent reason -- and most recently, they tried submitting two versions of the draft to the AFC queue alongside each other. The AFC queue is backlogged enough as it is without needing a redundant article, about someone we already have an article about, to keep coming back over and over again -- this is just turning into pointless disruption. Bearcat (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is a slightly difficult situation because the amount of disruption is marginal. I have added another sandbox page that hasn't been submitted just to include them all in the discussion.  The draft reads as if it has been written for a class.  The author clearly doesn't understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  That isn't their fault, and they are being marginally disruptive when some submitters are much worse.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Martha Gellhorn. Drafts that duplicate article space should be redirected.  Userspace pages that redirect article space may be redirected.  I don't like the policy against biting the newbies because it is overused and used as an excuse, but this really is a case where it does apply.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Speedy redirect.  Accidental content forks should always be fixed by redirecting, if possible, as the first option.  There is no reverted redirect edit in the history.  Redirecting a draft to the matching article should be required BEFORE bringing it to MfD.  Come to MfD only if reverted.
 * NB. The author has only edited on two days.  Bringing their work to MfD without having EVER talked to them is WP:BITING.  Bearcat writes: "the creator has already been advised that the article already exists"?  Really?  User talk:Shelsen contains no human messages.  Templates are not how people talk to each other.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "Thank you for your submission, but the topic of this article already exists. You can find and improve it at Martha Gellhorn." Nobody has any responsibility to give the editor any special personalized letter to reexplain what's already been explained. Bearcat (talk) 01:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Stop WP:BITING the newcomers. It was never explained.  AfC click-a-template-message is not sufficient communication.  If you can't be bothered with human talk to newcomers, get out of AfC.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing I did constitutes "biting" anybody, and I owe you neither my deference to any differing opinions on that question nor my "getting out of AFC". Bearcat (talk) 01:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Is MfD-ing someones' work, someone with two days editing history, with zero human user_talk messages, not biting? You are about to reduce their edit history to zero (or 100% deleted).  What kind of a welcome is that?
 * On the AfC point, my considered opinion for years now, is that AfC, the system, does huge damage to the ongoing viability of Wikipedia by systematically maltreating enthusiastic newcomers. (Nb these enthusiastic newcomers are a minority of AfC users, most being spammers, but genuine enthusiastic newcomers are among them).  If AfC can't help from biting newcomers, then it would be better to let AfC fail. I think people like you are working hard to keep the broken system in the appearance of working.
 * Sorry, but, if there is no evidence that this is not a good faith newcomer, I oppose MfD-ing their work prior to a reasonable conversation with them, and a reasonable conversation is not in an AfC template message. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Several weeks of editing history, not two days, and nobody had any special responsibility to do more than they did — templates work just fine as long as people actually read them. And people like you can take your opinion of people like me and stuff them in an Iowa gopher hole — I'll happily stack my longstanding record of being a productive and responsible and collaborative contributor of quality work to Wikipedia up against literally anybody else's any day in the full knowledge that I'll either win or draw all comers, and actually lose to absolutely nobody. If you've got an alternative that avoids being potentially "discouraging" to enthusiastic newcomers, while still keeping Wikipedia from being thoroughly overrun by the spammers who vastly outnumber them by your own admission, then by all means, I'd love to hear it. But if AFC ain't it to you, and "letting new and anonymous editors freely create pages directly in mainspace again" definitely ain't it according to the reality of what actually happened when that was the rule, then what new alternative is there? Bearcat (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, perhaps you are right. I feared for a very confused newcomer being bitten, trying to add material, while being innocently unaware of mainspace.  An alternative interpretation is that this is WP:SPA is violating NOTWEBHOST while writing his own personal essay on Martha Gellhorn.  In any case, redirecting is easy, and I have posted a message at User_talk:Shelsen covering the unlikely chance that it is a good faith intending new contributor.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2019 (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.