Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Information Coded Biofeedback

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 No consensus to delete. — xaosflux Talk 17:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Information Coded Biofeedback[edit]

Draft:Information Coded Biofeedback (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The following is an extract from my review comment on the draft:

BEGINS This is a copy and paste move of a section of Biofeedback and cannot be accepted since it is, currently, a WP:POVFORK.

It may be that your intention is to produce a WP:SPINOFF, which would be valid. However I suggest most strongly that you do this by discussion at Talk:Biofeedback where you make your case and gain consensus.

Copy and paste moves also remove the edit history of a section and are not to be undertaken lightly. The edit history is essential in order to attribute changes correctly. My view is that this draft should not proceed further, and that you should be concentrating your attention on Talk:Biofeedback. ENDS

My rationale for deletion is encompassed in the comment above. To summarise:

  • POV Fork
  • Copy and paste move
  • An action such as this requires consensus, something not present at Talk:Biofeedback

Fiddle Faddle 11:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to what rule does splitting an article require prior consensus? I quote from WP:SPLIT If an article meets the criteria for splitting, editors can be bold and carry out the split. the way to challenge it is to either discuss on the talk page, or revert and then discuss. What objection is there? In what way is the split a POV split? That it is a copy and paste move is not a reason for deletion--we have established means of providing attribution. DGG ( talk ) 20:50, 20 October 2014 (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.