Landon Tewers – No consensus. It is unclear what the request in this case is. As such opinions vary considerably, and there is no consensus for any particular action. To the extent that a move of the draftified article back to mainspace might be requested, my understanding is that this is an editorial decision which is neither prohibited nor required by this discussion, and which does not require DRV authorization. Sandstein 12:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Landon Tewers (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) History was removed from the redirect without any discussion, and it has been at draft for over two weeks. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] Jax 0677, I don't understand what the problem is. Someone converted the longstanding redirect at Landon Tewers to an article; that article was draftified; you recreated the longstanding redirect; the draftified version is being dealt with in draftspace. At no point did any deletion occur, meaning that this is outside DRV's scope. But even putting that aside, does it really matter whether the history of Landon Tewers shows that the redirect was created in 2017 or in 2022? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] Reply - I vaguely remember reading that the deletion of redirects with valuable article history should be avoided. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] Well, yeah, but the complete history of the redirect is still here and there are no deletions in the draft history either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] Reply - People have little way of knowing that the draft article exists. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] It's not DRV's job to fix that, though. And we don't do redirects from articlespace to Draft: space, last I checked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] Speedy close. Nothing has been deleted so this request is outside the scope of DRV. Stifle (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] Comment - Is WP:MR the correct forum? --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] To be honest, I am rather unsure what you are asking for. If you want to have Draft:Landon Tewers moved to Landon Tewers, you need to address the reasons why the draft was declined and the decline comment does point to the places where you can get the decline appealed. If you want to have your creation of the draft acknowledged in the redirect's history ... I don't think we do this and Primefac already declined your request, so you'd need to ask at User talk:Primefac and as the next step WP:AN. If you want the redirect to point to the draft instead, again we don't do this (WP:R#DELETE and WP:R2) and you'd need to get the policies changed at WT:CSD and WT:R but I don't think that will work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] Reply - When "Landon Tewers" was moved to Draft:Landon Tewers, Landon Tewers and the history there was deleted after the move. Article history should not be deleted unilaterally from an article name without speedy deletion, an AFD or some type of discussion. Redirects with valuable history should be kept with the history in tact, which has not happened here. Usually, when an AFD like this takes place, it will result in redirect with history left in tact. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] It wasn't deleted, it was moved to Draft:Landon Tewers. When a page is moved its history is moved as well; in this case to this page. If my understanding is correct you want to have the two oldest entries on this history moved to this history? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] Hi, Jax 0677. You can ask for clarifications about what policy says at Wikipedia:Help desk or at Wikipedia:Teahouse; I think contributors at either of those venues will be happy to explain about attribution and article histories as they relate to redirects and drafts. If you want to review Primefac's decision specifically, we now have a venue for that at WP:XRV. I can't see anything wrong or problematic about what's happened.—S Marshall T/C 13:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] Jax 0677 wants his draft back in mainspace, obviously. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] Reply - XRV says "Do not use this process yet" and "The operating procedures for this process are under discussion". --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] Where does it say "Do not use this process yet"?—S Marshall T/C 17:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] Reply - It was the top, but the header may have received been altered since that time. It now says "Administrative action review should not be used: to request an appeal or review of an action with a dedicated review process For review of page deletions or review of deletion discussion closures, use Wikipedia:Deletion review (DRV) For review of page moves, use Wikipedia:Move review (MRV)". --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] ~~Administrative close~~ The draftification had the appropriate effect. Nothing was deleted. The best way forward is to improve the draft; if that can't happen, I'm not sure what the point of the history under the redirect would really be, but any admin can put that back if it's never going to be a standalone article. Jclemens (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] Mainspace and AfD per SmokeyJoe below. Jclemens (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] WP:DRAFTOBJECT. Delete the current mainspace thing, and move the draft back to mainspace. Allow anyone to AfD it. AfC and draftspace is optional, and the author has clearly objected. Draftification must not be used as back door deletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] Reply - I think that this is the only policy based conclusion that can be arrived at at this point. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] The draft Draft:Landon Tewers was polluted with bad sources, but it had a couple of good sources. I have cut most of the worst. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Landon Tewers – No consensus. It is unclear what the request in this case is. As such opinions vary considerably, and there is no consensus for any particular action. To the extent that a move of the draftified article back to mainspace might be requested, my understanding is that this is an editorial decision which is neither prohibited nor required by this discussion, and which does not require DRV authorization. Sandstein 12:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

History was removed from the redirect without any discussion, and it has been at draft for over two weeks. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jax 0677, I don't understand what the problem is. Someone converted the longstanding redirect at Landon Tewers to an article; that article was draftified; you recreated the longstanding redirect; the draftified version is being dealt with in draftspace. At no point did any deletion occur, meaning that this is outside DRV's scope. But even putting that aside, does it really matter whether the history of Landon Tewers shows that the redirect was created in 2017 or in 2022? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I vaguely remember reading that the deletion of redirects with valuable article history should be avoided. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, but the complete history of the redirect is still here and there are no deletions in the draft history either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - People have little way of knowing that the draft article exists. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not DRV's job to fix that, though. And we don't do redirects from articlespace to Draft: space, last I checked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. Nothing has been deleted so this request is outside the scope of DRV. Stifle (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is WP:MR the correct forum? --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I am rather unsure what you are asking for. If you want to have Draft:Landon Tewers moved to Landon Tewers, you need to address the reasons why the draft was declined and the decline comment does point to the places where you can get the decline appealed. If you want to have your creation of the draft acknowledged in the redirect's history ... I don't think we do this and Primefac already declined your request, so you'd need to ask at User talk:Primefac and as the next step WP:AN. If you want the redirect to point to the draft instead, again we don't do this (WP:R#DELETE and WP:R2) and you'd need to get the policies changed at WT:CSD and WT:R but I don't think that will work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - When "Landon Tewers" was moved to Draft:Landon Tewers, Landon Tewers and the history there was deleted after the move. Article history should not be deleted unilaterally from an article name without speedy deletion, an AFD or some type of discussion. Redirects with valuable history should be kept with the history in tact, which has not happened here. Usually, when an AFD like this takes place, it will result in redirect with history left in tact. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't deleted, it was moved to Draft:Landon Tewers. When a page is moved its history is moved as well; in this case to this page. If my understanding is correct you want to have the two oldest entries on this history moved to this history? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Jax 0677. You can ask for clarifications about what policy says at Wikipedia:Help desk or at Wikipedia:Teahouse; I think contributors at either of those venues will be happy to explain about attribution and article histories as they relate to redirects and drafts. If you want to review Primefac's decision specifically, we now have a venue for that at WP:XRV. I can't see anything wrong or problematic about what's happened.—S Marshall T/C 13:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jax 0677 wants his draft back in mainspace, obviously. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - XRV says "Do not use this process yet" and "The operating procedures for this process are under discussion". --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Where does it say "Do not use this process yet"?—S Marshall T/C 17:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - It was the top, but the header may have received been altered since that time. It now says "Administrative action review should not be used:

to request an appeal or review of an action with a dedicated review process For review of page deletions or review of deletion discussion closures, use Wikipedia:Deletion review (DRV) For review of page moves, use Wikipedia:Move review (MRV)". --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Administrative close~~ The draftification had the appropriate effect. Nothing was deleted. The best way forward is to improve the draft; if that can't happen, I'm not sure what the point of the history under the redirect would really be, but any admin can put that back if it's never going to be a standalone article. Jclemens (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Mainspace and AfD per SmokeyJoe below. Jclemens (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DRAFTOBJECT. Delete the current mainspace thing, and move the draft back to mainspace. Allow anyone to AfD it. AfC and draftspace is optional, and the author has clearly objected. Draftification must not be used as back door deletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I think that this is the only policy based conclusion that can be arrived at at this point. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The draft Draft:Landon Tewers was polluted with bad sources, but it had a couple of good sources. I have cut most of the worst. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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