Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh

The BLP is already in the main NS at Amina Hassan. This draft lacks citations and contains WP:OR. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 21:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History merge. User:Saqib mistates the history. The draft was already there first. Awesimf (talk · contribs) gets the new article credit, and should not have their contribution history deleted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about which page was created first, it's about which one aligns with WP:V. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 07:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Failing WP:V is not a deletion reason, especially not now that you have found sources. You should have improved the draft, not create a content fork. Which page was created first is important. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only found out about this draft yesterday. If I'd known earlier, I would've definitely worked on improving it. Further, there's WP:OR and WP:PROMO content in there which it's a clear violation of WP:BLP. Anyway, I don't have strong feelings about it. The closing admin can do whatever they want with it. I'm not concerned about getting credit for merely creating a BLP. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see a justification to revdelete anything if it was already in the history. So I support a history merge to fix the accidental fork, even if it is a small thing. Redirecting the draft to the article is a middle solution. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History merge the first 5 revisions, from 17 March 2024. Delete the later revisions. There is then no overlapping history problem. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This nomination is vexatious. Drafts are not deleted simply because an article exists. The usual way of dealing with a draft when there is also an article is to Speedy Redirect the draft to the article, not to delete the draft and its history. This appears to be an effort to deprive a previous contributor of credit and so obtain credit to which the nominator is not entitled. The good faith assumption has to be that the nominator is unaware of the usual practice when a draft and an article both exist, in which case the nominator should not be nominating drafts for deletion. In this case, as SmokeyJoe explains, a history merge is in order rather than a Speedy Redirect. The nominator should not be nominating drafts for deletion if they don't know about Speedy Redirection. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect draft to article. Thanks to Awesimf for writing the draft, and to Saqib for writing a referenced stub. Perhaps they and/or others could see which of the currently unreferenced additional bits in the draft could be referenced and added to the article? Beyond that, I see no particular reason to delete this draft and its history, nor do I see any particular reason to not assume good faith regarding anyone's motivations here. Martinp (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bad faith is not required to correct something to how it should have been. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Matrinp. There are WP:Parallel histories here so this can't be histmerged. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only the first fiver revisions are important to history merge, and these create no parallel history. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Martinp and Pppery /... and Extraordinary Writ; switching back to my original recommendation: after a more careful look it is now clear to me that the histories are unrelated and I agree the question of who gets the credit is not important/ (parallel histories). ~~Selectively histmerge as SmokeyJoe says. Delete the later revisions.~~—Alalch E. 23:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selectively History Merge: As per others in this discussion. There's no overlap with the first 5 revisions. TarnishedPath^talk 02:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath since you commented mostly "as per others" which references also my comment at the time when I also recommended histmerging I am just notifying you that I changed my !vote back to redirect, because while histmerging would have been fine in the scenario of someone creating a draft then someone else copying that to mainspace and continuing to work on it, instead of moving, which would be a "copy-and-paste mainspacing", in which scenario providing continuity to establish the real history of contributions would be beneficial, that scenario is not the current scenario, due to the article having been created independently from the draft. I would have !voted like this originally (and in fact I did), but I erroneously changed my !vote because I did not properly interpret the pages' histories. —Alalch E. 23:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problem with a redirect as the page history will be preserved. TarnishedPath^talk 00:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. History merges at best make the history harder to decipher and at worst give a misleading impression of what happened. In this case there's no legal attribution issue, and giving someone "credit" is not a good enough reason to resort to a histmerge, in my opinion. (Requests like this are regularly declined at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]