The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete / moot. Content is now where the student needs to edit it (thanks @Mccapra:, and Dolly City is advising them, so I do not see the need to draftify this. Closing procedurally, and deleting the mainspace version. Star Mississippi 16:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revisionist Zionism Draft[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I move this obvious draft article to Draft space but the page creator insists on moving it repeatedly to main space despite its unsuitability and I expect a PROD tag would be removed which leaves AFD. I'm not adverse to Draftification if the article creator agrees to allow the AFC process to occur instead of just putting AFC tags on their page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Subject is not without merit scopewise, and page creator Dolphin372 (talk · contribs) is a newcomer student editor. Whatever fate the discussion takes, we should try and give both a chance. (See WP:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 04:18, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or delete: Clearly not ready for mainspace and should not remain there in its current condition. Move to draft would be the obvious solution but if the creator has unilaterally moved to main against process, then this AfD is almost inevitable. May be notable / usable (after much work) and if moved to draft could possibly be protected against further moves? Eagleash (talk) 05:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Delete – I agree with all of the above, and it's a pity to see a new editor get off to a less than ideal start, but they wittingly or unwittingly brought this upon themselves so here we are. Ideally draftify, but only with the creator's express agreement not to move it out of drafts past AfC again (and if needed, I'm happy to keep an eye on it and provide swift reviews, if there's time pressure on getting this published, as a student assignment or something). Otherwise, if they don't wish to play that particular ballgame, then delete. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we already have Revisionist Zionism and definitely don’t want a second, overlapping article, which additionally (so far) is all about Vladimir Jabotinsky, another well-covered subject. The creator needs to either edit the existing articles or else pick a completely new topic for an article start. Mccapra (talk) 07:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hi, this draft was created in the framework of the academic course Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Middlebury College/Zionism and the Roads Not Taken 1880-1948 (Spring 2023), which I teach. The creator user:Dolphin372 worked on revising the article in his Sandbox, but if I understand correctly, it had been deleted by one of the editors and turned into a draft page. The student is new to Wikipedia and had no intention of doing anything against local norms. I would appreciate if you won't delete his work while we are still trying to figure out how did his Sandbox draft become an independent draft. Thanks. User:Brianda (Wiki Ed) User:Helaine (Wiki Ed) We would really appriciate your help. Dolly City (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the page history shows that the article creator moved it themselves, with a note saying “ready for mainspace”. I’ve no objection to this AfD being closed and the article moved to the creator’s sandbox. However any new article accepted into mainspace needs to be about material which we don’t already have covered in existing articles, or it will just get deleted again. I suggest some work goes into finding a potential topic that will be a real addition to the encyclopedia. Mccapra (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I understand now what happened. I will review the existing draft and provide feedback to the student. In the meantime, I recreated his sandbox, but it has the following message: This template is being used in the wrong namespace. To nominate this user page for deletion, go to Miscellany for deletion. What should I do now? Thanks for all your help. Dolly City (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dolly City: hi I have copied the text of the draft to User:Dolphin372/sandbox and from there you can copy it again to the appropriate destination for this coursework. This deletion discussion will continue until it is closed by an admin but don’t worry about it. The student’s content is safe in their user space now for them to continue working on. Mccapra (talk) 09:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianda (Wiki Ed):@Helaine (Wiki Ed): plz see note above. Mccapra (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccapra I wrote to the instructor and student and stressed the point of reviewing their work to make sure duplicate text isn't added in, and adding more inline citations from reliable sources to support additions. As always feel free to ping me for any concern with our students. Thanks. Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.