Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of reservoirs in Wales

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of reservoirs in Wales

[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)

There is already a page, Reservoirs of Wales. This page duplicates that, and although the creator is taking it to a different presentation of the material, that is a classic WP:POVFORK. There has been no discussion about it on the existing reservoirs page, and the information should not be duplicated in two places. Moreover there is an existing List of reservoirs in England and Wales by volume with an ongoing discussion on its talk page about splitting into England and Wales, and re-arrangement of the material there. Editor consensus appears to be favouring not splitting, but the discussion is ongoing. This page pre-empts that discussion, a split by fait accomplis. Just prior to creation of this page, the creator unilaterally moved the existing England and Wales list article to draft space (Draft:List of reservoirs in England and Wales by volume), despite that ongoing discussion regarding a split, and despite having been warned not to [1]. This POVFORK should be deleted. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:List of reservoirs in England and Wales by volume does not have proper citation at all as was concluded in later discussion, meaning article was justifiably moved to draft.

This page is new since then and verifiably cited. Titus Gold (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the existing article IS appropriately sourced. This is a wholly redundant fork created while a discussion was ongoing and is yet another repetition of data already present across a range of articles. The task now is to rationalise and simplify the existing articles with consensus and not to create yet one more version. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This page was moved to Draft:List of reservoirs in Wales by its creator and the AfD template removed. Not entirely sure what the procedure is here? I've tagged List of reservoirs in Wales as WP:R2 for the time being. TartarTorte 21:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TartarTorte: I have restored the AfD tag--anyone, especially the author, removing the tag while the discussion is ongoing is Not Okay, and moving the article back to draft space should not allow the article to escape scrutiny. The proper course would be to move the article back to mainspace, but because you tagged the redirect in mainspace for deletion, this was considered to be enough of a substantial edit to prevent a non-admin like myself to move it back straight away. That said, the current status quo is not unacceptable, and a helpful admin might happen along and make the move themselves. --Finngall ^talk 21:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and delete. The reason I moved to draft is because this was prematurely proposed a deletion of before I even had the chance to return it to draft following moving of List of reservoirs in Wales back to article. Titus Gold (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Moving forward, I'll just leave it alone without G6'ing. I always forget the page move rule allows for a revert if it was just a page move with no substantial edits to the redirect after move. TartarTorte 14:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of reservoirs in England and Wales by volume has been proposed by the author of the article under discussion here. Dank Jae 22:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, based on lack of verifiable citation. Titus Gold (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have returned the article to main space. You shouldn't move an article that is being discussed at an AFD to Draft space. If you are seeking this, then vote to "Draftify". Once an article is in main space, it can be nominated for an AFD regardless of its condition. This should not be news to experienced editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. This is one of many content forks by the same editor, who prefers to delete and/or copypaste other articles into their prefered format/title, rather than work with other editors to improve Wikipedia. The existing articles do a better job of presenting useful, encyclopedic information. I think trying to replicate the entire contents of DataMapWales as a Wikipedia list article falls foul of WP:NOT. Sionk (talk) 11:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets our LISTN criteria. Bruxton (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Meeting the criteria was never in doubt. The nomination is because this is a WP:POVFORK. That guideline says "The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article; in some cases, editors have converted existing redirects into content forks." This is exactly what happened here. The creator of the page has replaced a redirect with text so as to dodge a consensus not to split List of reservoirs in England and Wales by volume, which page the creator of this POVFORK has now also nominated for deletion! I hope you could take a look at the history and discussion on that other article. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message - it was my mistake. Bruxton (talk) 01:05, 8 February 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.