Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Saviour of the Empire

 __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: closed. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Saviour of the Empire


Dupe of article already in mainspace.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete dup. Legacypac (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Wrong, not a duplicate. User:onel5969, would you please review your intended meaning of the word "already", and what you sentence can be misread as?  It is a misleading nomination.  The draft was not duplicated from the article.  At the time of creation and edits of the draft, there was no article.  It is the same old typical case of a copy-paste.  It can be best-repaired with a WP:History merge.
 * Worse, there is dishonesty in the proposal to delete the draft, arguing due merely to due to it being a duplicate, because you have separately |prodded the mainspace article. You didn't disclose this, nor even did you link the article (Saviour of the Empire) making it easy for us to discover.  The reason for deletion of the article is not a good reason for the deletion of the draft.
 * Keep the draft, wait for the result on the PROD.
 * If the article is deleted, keep the draft.
 * If the article is kept, WP:History merge the draft to the article to repair the copy-paste error.
 * --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, just so we're clear: The article was created at 20:16, 29 September 2017‎ (see ). The final edit on the article was at 10:23, 30 September 2017‎. The draft was nominated for deletion at 12:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC) (see above). The two are virtually identical. Not sure what the above editor is looking at. 9/29/2017 predates October 15, 2017. Never said the draft was created second, merely that it was a dupe of an article in mainspace. Which it clearly is. Personal attacks are so blasé... The draft nomination preceded my looking at the article. The draft is a duplicate of a mainspace article, regardless of which was created first, which is irrelevant.  The mainspace is completely non-notable. Both should be deleted. But thanks for the biased commentary.  Onel 5969  TT me 03:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Accuracy in communication is important, especially when tossing others work. "Never said the draft was created second"?  Duplicate of something there "already" unavoidably implies this.  As stated (in error), the statement is an excellent reason for deletion, forking mainspace content to draftspace.  When corrected, there is no reason for deletion of the draft.  Nothing you have written provides a reason for deletion of the draft.  It does, however, appear to fail WP:V.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * RE "Not sure what the above editor is looking at" and surrounding. The draft was created 22:42, 15 August 2017‎.  The article was created 20:16, 29 September 2017‎.  The draft was created first, it did not duplicate an article, the article did not already exist.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right, accuracy is important. Once again you make the errant assumption that I said the draft was created second. All I say is that it is a duplicate of an article already in mainspace. Which is accurate. There is an article already in mainspace. This is a duplicate of it. Never spoke of the timeline of the creation of the two pieces, which is a trivial and irrelevant issue.  Onel 5969  TT me 11:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The book and author seem unverifiable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As the creator of this article I need to point out that this book is featured in the article List of fictional Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, without any sources. I have started a discussion on the talk page but I have no responses yet. My intention was to draw attention to that there seems to be little verification and few sources on List of fictional Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom in general and Saviour of the empire in particular. I suggest that those who take part in this decision also look in to that. --Martilito (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Hut 8.5 deleted page Saviour of the Empire (G3: Blatant hoax). The draft redirect should go similarly.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * the non-sense entry in the list was also removed.


 * 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.