Development of Spock – Speedy deletion overturned. Opinions are split about whether this spinoff article is better suited to user space until it is improved, or to main space. But this can be tested at AfD if necessary, so it goes back to main space for now, even though it clearly needs work. – Sandstein 19:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Development of Spock (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) Article was nominated for speedy deletion by David.moreno72 at around 10:57 yesterday, which was about half an hour after it was moved from userspace. I've restored it in userspace at User:Miyagawa/sandbox2, so you can see it is around 50kb in size and fully cited (but by no means comprehensive yet, as I have further sources to add yet before considering a WP:GAN run). It was nominated per WP:A10 as it was claimed that it was a duplication of Spock. It was not a duplication, it was a content split per WP:SIZESPLIT. Spock itself is already at around 50kb, so if I'd placed the content from the new Development of Spock into it then it would have immediately qualified for a split. So I skipped the unnecessary step and created it as a new article, linking to it from within the Development section at Spock. I contested the speedy deletion on the talk page per that reason - indeed A10 states specifically that the criteria "does not include split pages or any article that expands or reorganizes an existing one or that contains referenced, mergeable material." Expecting that to be the end of it, I didn't check it again until after 9pm last night - only to find it had been deleted just under three hours earlier at 18:02 by RHaworth. I left a message on their page, but they haven't been online since. I hold my hands up as I've never needed to contest a speedy deletion before, I'm impatient and should probably wait longer for RHaworth to be active once more. But as I see it, this is a straight forward error in qualification for A10. Miyagawa (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] undelete not a valid A10 for the reasons given. But, IMO this also isn't a good spinout at the moment. The lede is very similar to the main article and other parts are too. I think it could use some more work before going to mainspace. As it is, I'd support deletion at AfD on the theory that the spinout doesn't help the encyclopedia. But I think a good spinout could exist, and while this isn't one yet, I think it could be a start. Hobit (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] ~~undelete and list at AfD~~ userfy and discuss at talk:spock. I pretty much agree with everything Hobit said. I don't think the A10 call was unreasonable, but Miyagawa provides a plausible argument why this article is legitimate, and in my mind, that's enough to disqualify A10. Like Hobit, I doubt this would survive AfD, but I'm also not convinced AfD is the right forum to discuss this. Seems like Talk:Spock is the right place. But that's a detail; the main point is that A10 just doesn't feel like the right thing here. Let the broader community decide. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] Agreed about Talk:Spock. And I'd prefer the creator just agree to a move to userspace until agreement at Talk:Spock concludes that this spinout is both wise and ready to go. Hobit (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] I'm happy to agree to that - it can remain in userspace for the foreeseeable while the conversation can take place at Talk:Spock. Miyagawa (talk) 07:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] As a reasonable contest of a CSD#A10 deletion, it should be undeleted and sent to AfD. An RfC at talk:spock is another option. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] As an administrative point, I don't understand how this got moved from userspace to mainspace, and back. I don't see any renames in the article histories. Were these just copy-and-paste deals? If so, that forks the article history and isn't what we want to do. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] I always copy-paste move from userspace. I use the same four sandboxes, usually over a protracted period of time without the involvement of other editors. The article wasn't moved back to userspace as such, I simply undid the edit that deleted the draft. Miyagawa (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] You shouldn't be doing that. You should be using the Move function, under the More menu near the top of every page. Copy-paste moves destroy the history chain. We need the history to comply with our licensing requirements. See Moving_a_page#Before_moving_a_page. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] No need when it's just his own edits that he's moving. And, especially, getting an admin to history-split the many hundreds of revisions in his sandbox would be overkill. —Cryptic 15:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] If you start each new article as a new page, there's no history splitting involved. And, now we've got a case where the article spent some time in mainspace, and that history is lost. Granted, there wasn't much in the way of history to lose in this case, but it's still just simpler, cleaner, and less confusing to other people who are trying to follow the history, to move instead of copy-paste. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] A10 is for duplicate articles, with nothing to merge, whose titles would be speedyable if they had been created as redirects directly. This was none of the three. The only legitimate avenue for its deletion is afd. Overturn, and don't even procedurally list there; leave that for someone who believes this material should be deleted outright with nothing at all being merged, and who somehow thinks that will be the outcome there. —Cryptic 15:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] Undelete Should be discussed in AfD. I will watch for it there.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] Given the authors willingness to have it in ~~main~~ userspace, I think userfying would be a better way forward. Hobit (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] Restore to user space. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] Userify, and consider as a replacement for the existing article. This version is better. DGG ( talk ) 08:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] Undelete and trout the admin for improper endorsement of A10. After that... mainspace, AfD, or userspace are all reasonable options. Jclemens (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] Undelete If someone feels it merits deletion, they can AFD it or propose a merge on the talkpage. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Development of Spock – Speedy deletion overturned. Opinions are split about whether this spinoff article is better suited to user space until it is improved, or to main space. But this can be tested at AfD if necessary, so it goes back to main space for now, even though it clearly needs work. – Sandstein 19:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Article was nominated for speedy deletion by David.moreno72 at around 10:57 yesterday, which was about half an hour after it was moved from userspace. I've restored it in userspace at User:Miyagawa/sandbox2, so you can see it is around 50kb in size and fully cited (but by no means comprehensive yet, as I have further sources to add yet before considering a WP:GAN run). It was nominated per WP:A10 as it was claimed that it was a duplication of Spock. It was not a duplication, it was a content split per WP:SIZESPLIT. Spock itself is already at around 50kb, so if I'd placed the content from the new Development of Spock into it then it would have immediately qualified for a split. So I skipped the unnecessary step and created it as a new article, linking to it from within the Development section at Spock. I contested the speedy deletion on the talk page per that reason - indeed A10 states specifically that the criteria "does not include split pages or any article that expands or reorganizes an existing one or that contains referenced, mergeable material." Expecting that to be the end of it, I didn't check it again until after 9pm last night - only to find it had been deleted just under three hours earlier at 18:02 by RHaworth. I left a message on their page, but they haven't been online since. I hold my hands up as I've never needed to contest a speedy deletion before, I'm impatient and should probably wait longer for RHaworth to be active once more. But as I see it, this is a straight forward error in qualification for A10. Miyagawa (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

undelete not a valid A10 for the reasons given. But, IMO this also isn't a good spinout at the moment. The lede is very similar to the main article and other parts are too. I think it could use some more work before going to mainspace. As it is, I'd support deletion at AfD on the theory that the spinout doesn't help the encyclopedia. But I think a good spinout could exist, and while this isn't one yet, I think it could be a start. Hobit (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~undelete and list at AfD~~ userfy and discuss at talk:spock. I pretty much agree with everything Hobit said. I don't think the A10 call was unreasonable, but Miyagawa provides a plausible argument why this article is legitimate, and in my mind, that's enough to disqualify A10. Like Hobit, I doubt this would survive AfD, but I'm also not convinced AfD is the right forum to discuss this. Seems like Talk:Spock is the right place. But that's a detail; the main point is that A10 just doesn't feel like the right thing here. Let the broader community decide. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed about Talk:Spock. And I'd prefer the creator just agree to a move to userspace until agreement at Talk:Spock concludes that this spinout is both wise and ready to go. Hobit (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm happy to agree to that - it can remain in userspace for the foreeseeable while the conversation can take place at Talk:Spock. Miyagawa (talk) 07:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As a reasonable contest of a CSD#A10 deletion, it should be undeleted and sent to AfD. An RfC at talk:spock is another option. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As an administrative point, I don't understand how this got moved from userspace to mainspace, and back. I don't see any renames in the article histories. Were these just copy-and-paste deals? If so, that forks the article history and isn't what we want to do. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I always copy-paste move from userspace. I use the same four sandboxes, usually over a protracted period of time without the involvement of other editors. The article wasn't moved back to userspace as such, I simply undid the edit that deleted the draft. Miyagawa (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't be doing that. You should be using the Move function, under the More menu near the top of every page. Copy-paste moves destroy the history chain. We need the history to comply with our licensing requirements. See Moving_a_page#Before_moving_a_page. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No need when it's just his own edits that he's moving. And, especially, getting an admin to history-split the many hundreds of revisions in his sandbox would be overkill. —Cryptic 15:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you start each new article as a new page, there's no history splitting involved. And, now we've got a case where the article spent some time in mainspace, and that history is lost. Granted, there wasn't much in the way of history to lose in this case, but it's still just simpler, cleaner, and less confusing to other people who are trying to follow the history, to move instead of copy-paste. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A10 is for duplicate articles, with nothing to merge, whose titles would be speedyable if they had been created as redirects directly. This was none of the three. The only legitimate avenue for its deletion is afd. Overturn, and don't even procedurally list there; leave that for someone who believes this material should be deleted outright with nothing at all being merged, and who somehow thinks that will be the outcome there. —Cryptic 15:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete Should be discussed in AfD. I will watch for it there.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the authors willingness to have it in ~~main~~ userspace, I think userfying would be a better way forward. Hobit (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to user space. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userify, and consider as a replacement for the existing article. This version is better. DGG ( talk ) 08:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete and trout the admin for improper endorsement of A10. After that... mainspace, AfD, or userspace are all reasonable options. Jclemens (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete If someone feels it merits deletion, they can AFD it or propose a merge on the talkpage. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.