- 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 Delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Article Incubator/County Road 509 (Brevard County, Florida)[edit]
Speedy delete Article was nominated for deletion, resulting in a consensus to redirect it to the applicable list, and merge the usable content.[1] A user had the closing administrator move this to its present location without following any of the procedures at Article Incubator. I could not find an applicable speedy deletion category for this. The history of the article prior to deletion should be restored at County_Road_509_(Brevard_County,_Florida), and if the user has desires to incubate it, either follow the procedure, or userfy it and work on it themselves. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain what procedure was violated with this move to incubator? To me, it appears to meet the incubation criteria. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per nom as an out of process action by the administrator and requesting party. Imzadi 1979 → 21:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, this article had section added, which, IMHO, established notability. This section was added after most of the comments were made regarding redirect nomination. It is my understanding that it is preferable for an article to go into Article Incubator, then to userfy. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're the one that wants to improve it. It should go to your userspace following the AfD. The history at the redirect would remain beyond the recreation of the article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your opinion on notability, but others did not agree with you, which is why consensus was to redirect/merge. There was no discussion nor even a mention of the AI until you made it outside of the AfD process after the AfD was closed. The article's history should be sent back into the history of the redirect for copyright/licensing purposes, and this page should be deleted. Imzadi 1979 → 22:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I mentioned, the content establishing notability was added after most of the comments were made about the redirect. If I had known about the Article Incubator during the merger process, I would have recommended it. Actually, the copyright/licensing is better preserved as the article is developed in the incubator and returned to Wikipedia then it is sitting as a redirect, where no one will see it. But I do think there should be a connection between the two while the process is in place. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You assume that commenters at the AfD weren't watching the article. You can't assume that. In my case, my opinion did not change one iota, and there was no need to update my comments to reflect the changes in the article, as my comments would not have changed. As for the licensing, had the former article be userfied with a a link to the article in the edit history, the licensing would have been preserved. Now the history has been severed from the "new" redirect, which broke the chain of events when I summarized/merged the old article into the list with a summary that referenced the former article. That's potentially a violation of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 or GFDL licenses in play for contributions to Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 22:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article had been nominated for AI, what would have been done differently? FieldMarine (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well as for out of process, the AI page states articles must be voted in AFD to be incubated, and closed as incubate. This article was closed as merge. On What Incubation is Not "A means of preserving sub-standard content on Wikipedia indefinitely, including content that has been deleted per consensus in a particular content for deletion discussion," I feel applies here since it was voted on at AFD. --Admrboltz (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me rephrase the question, what would have been done differently during the closeout if it went to AI in terms of the move & preservation of the copyright/licensing issue? Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It would actually be set up in the article incubator so that it shows up. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - (edit conflict) if anything, it should have been userfied, not sent to the article incubator. The article simply does not pass WP:GNG or WP:USRD/NT and likely never will, and thus will never warrant a standalone article. --Admrboltz (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep appears to be actively worked on, which is the purpose of the "incubator". Any admin, as far as I know, has the right to do such, or to userfy an article which would otherwise be deleted. If one wishes to delete the guidelines allowing incubation, the place to do so is "not here." Collect (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No real additions have been made to the article since the deletion discussion (only removing article space categories), and userfication is appropriate given the criteria at WP:AI. The incubator is a community process, and it works by having more than one person at a deletion discussion advocate the cleaning up of the article. Since that is not the case and only one editor is fighting for it, they should userfy it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:38, 21 January 2011 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.