Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:USS ROSS

 __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. — xaosflux  Talk 15:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Draft:USS ROSS


This draft is a duplicate of USS Ross (DDG-71). This draft has no hope of going into the mainspace Gbawden (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Userfy and discuss with author. Using MfD like this is pretty BITEy.
 * This draft, and the other ship drafts below, were created as copies of mainspace articles by on 7 and 8 July. On 8 July, Gbawden informed NavalEngineer24 on their talk page that these pages already exist and encouraged them to edit them directly, which is the appropriate thing to do. However, after just 5 hours without a response, Gbawden MfD'd the four drafts here. NavalEngineer24 subsequently replied to the original talk page notice: "I am doing this for editing purposes. Creating drafts of these wiki pages in order to eventually update/replace them." This is a legitimate use of userspace (per WP:UP), although it doesn't seem quite appropriate in draftspace. In any case, what this new user needs is patient guidance, not a slew of deletion noms.
 * If has no objections (do you?), I'm going to userfy these drafts, close these MfD's, and leave the author a note about WP:UP and encouraging them to edit in mainspace. Sound good? A2soup (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is no attribution. Do not userify this unattributed GFDL-violating copyright violation. There is a page and another WP:UP is pretty clear. Editors often pull this routine of making copies of pages and making whatever changes they want and maybe or never making the changes in mainspace. It's a nuisance to follow along and each draft has be removed from mainspace categories and the like, all for one editor's odd idiosyncrasies about how they want to edit here. There is no reason for us to excess clean-up work just to deal with editors who want to do things like this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * These drafts were all created in the last 48 hours. Less than 24 hours ago, the editor clearly stated that they intend to use them in a manner explicitly allowed by WP:UP. I know well that new editors sometimes fail to actually work/practice on the copy (I'm not sure how frequently since we find them through the stale drafts category, and there is no corresponding category for copies that are not abandoned), but that fact absolutely cannot be used to assume that this new editor will disregard their explicit intention to do work in mainspace. Where is the good faith, especially towards a newbie who is obviously just finding their way around? A2soup (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I see now that you left an explanation at their talk page. Thanks for that :) A2soup (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * This, and the three listed below, appear to me to be straightforward WP:UP violations, and should be deleted as such, now that they have become old (old = ~1 week to me, but more importantly, the mainspace article has been edited, making the fork and old fork). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:17, 25 July 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.