Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Philips Numan

 __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  delete; article on subject exists in mainspace.  Mini  apolis  03:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Philips Numan


January 2014 stale draft that is already at Philip Numan. There was no AFC submission notice so it's not G13 eligible. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as copy of what is a current article. Looks like more an oversight that it was not deleted than anything else. Collect (talk) 23:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not an oversight, it doesn't fall under G13 by rule so it requires MFD to delete. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you say it is a copy of the current article, when the title is different, as is the content. If WP:STALEDRAFT is being invoked here: (i) this is not in user space, and (ii) I'm hardly "long inactive".Charles Matthews (talk) 05:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's the same person, isn't it? It's the same birth year and death year, a city official to Brussels versus Flemish official and writer in both, along with Philips Numan redirecting there. Are they actually different people? That's a lot of coincidences. It's more of a WP:WEBHOST issue I guess since it was just left in draftspace. If it was left there under an AFC submission, it would have been deleted per G13 in July 2014 or so, but without the submission, it's just an orphaned draft. If you want userify it, I'm fine with that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure it is the same person. Philip Numan contains the uncyclopedic phrase "Little is known about Numan's life." Which shouldn't really appear here, unattributed. I was clearly drafting something in 2014, someone else created the article in 2015. It is a case for a merge, not a process. I'd probably react better to a simple talk page prompt. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Why a merge? There's nothing sourced in the draft that could or should be merged. And prompt for what? Because you created a draft page and left it? It wasn't in your userspace, it was left there so I presumed that meant you left it alone and moved on which is what happens and when that happens and an article is created, if there's old drafts lying around, they get tagged for deletion as this one did. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, unless you plan to do something with it Charles, I would suggest working on the article in the main space. I see no reason to merge, as it's not required for attribution. --kelapstick(bainuu) 02:45, 28 December 2015 (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.