Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Vaccine controversies

 __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: was userfied at user request (non-admin closure) UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Vaccine controversies


PoV fork, an end-run around a current move discussion, redundant to a simple link to the old version of the forked page vaccine hesitancy. Guy (Help!) 19:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's a draft. If the user wants to use it to edit the existing article, they should be allowed to do do.  It doesn't need deleting.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as POVFORK. Draftspace should not be used for forking. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep As creator. This page is not in final form, I was working on it in my sandbox, but put it in draft space so others could work on it as well, any POV should be edited out without deleting the whole article. Can someone explain what is meant by "forking", and how this is  "an end-run around a current move discussion"? I am also not sure what "redundant to a simple link to the old version of the forked page vaccine hesitancy."  means. I don't understand the rational for deletion to the point that I am not quite sure what I am arguing against. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You are sandboxing forked content out of view of active editors. This material is already in mainspace.  Edit the material in mainspace.  I'm guessing that you don't because you encounter resistance from other editors.  You need to deal with that, not fork to draftspace.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I am attempting to create an article on vaccine controversies, it is not in final form where I feel it is ready to be created, so I have it in draft space because this is a work in progress that is not fit for mainspace yet, that said, I did CSD the draft because I moved my whole sandbox history to the draft's history by mistake. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Even if it wasn't a pov fork, which it is, there are still other issues. There are years of his sandbox history in it because of how he created the draft. Also the way the content was copied in does not make note of where it was copied from. Better to start over with original content. AlmostFrancis (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete No, I am attempting to create an article on vaccine controversies... So why didn't you do so, instead of copying an existing article to make this POV fork? A reminder:
 * ...POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion. --Calton &#124; Talk 03:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Except this is nothing to do with a disagreement, I am in the process of creating an article, it is nowhere near done yet, but there is no policy that says I can't use an old revision of an existing article as a starting point for a new article. This is a DRAFT, it is NOT an article yet, deleting a draft that was just created because it is not fit to be an article is only interfering with the process of improving it to the point that it can be put in article space, if you don't want me to create a vaccine controversies article, object if/when I propose moving it into mainspace, but don't try to obstruct the process of creating the draft! Tornado chaser (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You can't use an old version to start a new article, at least without doing workarounds, for two reasons:
 * (1) The need to start with substantial content from the other article means that you are content forking. It is like a split, except done unwatched, and the stuff you take also stays behind
 * (2) Your version has lost the attribution of the version that you copied from. We could speedy delete your work immediately per WP:CDS.  Copying within Wikipedia points out the legal minimum workaround, but it is really bad practice, and should be deleted unless done for a very good reason.
 * What you are doing is closest to a WP:SPLIT, but it is not being done acceptably. Any WP:SPLIT should be done only with explicit consensus support on the old article talk page.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep a good faith editor is working on a draft. Legacypac (talk) 05:45, 21 February 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.