Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Parliamentary Protective Service

 __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: speedy redirect to Parliamentary Protective Service. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Parliamentary Protective Service


Needless copy of existing mainspace page. Now causing maintenance. Legacypac (talk) 04:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Refering to WP:UP. Short term sandboxing in your userspace is OK.  Many do it.  Short term.  This sandbox is one day old.  Why did Legacypac move it to draftspace???  "contribs)‎ m . . (5,358 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Legacypac moved page User:Nadia maras/sandbox to Draft:Parliamentary Protective Service: Preferred location for AfC submissions)"
 * Why did Legacypac think it was an AfC submission?
 * I note that is a newly active WP:SPA account editing Parliamentary Protective Service.  The edits look unconstructive.
 * Delete if Nadia maras is blocked. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I moved it from a sandbox which was submitted to AfC. AfC reviewers routinely move submitted drafts inro Draft space as the instructions suggest. It really helps us find pages that duplicate mainspace pages. Given it is a copy of a mainspace page we obviously can't approve it. Legacypac (talk) 06:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm confused about "sandbox which was submitted to AfC". How did it happen? I see that it did .  Probably doesn't matter.  We shouldn't try so hard with time wasting non-communicators.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Parliamentary Protective Service - Needless copy, but also needless MFD nomination. User:SmokeyJoe - This isn't the first time that you have seemed puzzled by standard AFC procedures.  It would be a good idea to acquire a basic knowledge of standard AFC procedures, such as the submission of sandboxes for AFC review, which is very common, and the moving of sandboxes to draft space, which is very common and is encouraged, rather than asking us why we did the obvious or dumping on the AFC reviewers for doing what is standard.  (Yes, User:SmokeyJoe, you have dumped on the AFC reviewers for standard stuff.)  A draft when there is already an article should be made into a redirect to the article.  Redirects from draft space to article space are standard.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What confused me is why the user would use AfC to make a sandbox copy, usually they just do a simple create and copy-paste. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The user made their preferred version of the page in their sandbox and submitted it for review by an experienced editor. They were first editing the mainspace version but kept getting reverted. The main probelm seems to be what one user called whitewashing. I note there are some significant factual detail differences between this user's versions and the longstanding version and I don't know which is correct, but all the perceived failings of the force were removed by this user. Given the near edit warring and failure to communicate I think removing the alternate version draft superior to redirection. Legacypac (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree, although the absolute truth of the matter I haven’t examined. Delete in favour of the mainspace article, with advice to the user to explain themselves on the article talk page. No POVFORKing to draftspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Question for User:SmokeyJoe - Why do you favor Delete over Redirect? Redirects from draft space to article space are very common; for instance, they are the result of acceptance of a draft into article space.  The redirect is normally left in place indefinitely unless someone mistakenly tags it for G6.  A simple redirect eliminates the POVFORK just as well as a delete does.  You have in the past argued for redirects, usually successfully.  What is the difference here?  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You are right, a redirect here would be fine. I jumped to “delete” because that’s what we usually do with WP:UP pages.  However, this page is not old.  There are also no creative edits in the copy, so it does not generate the attribution complications if there were an unused edit history.  So, a bit of a knee jerk to delete a content fork, redirect is ok.  Usually, UP#COPIES MfDs are old with a parallel history of edits, userspace to mainspace, and are far more trouble than worth investigating, and long term sandboxing is to be discouraged.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the mainspace article, as such redirects are common (albeit usually when articles are moved upon acceptance) and do no harm. That said, given that this wasn't actually an accepted submission I'd be entirely happy with deletion too. ƒirefly  ( t · c · who? ) 12:12, 17 June 2018 (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.