Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:OComainDraft

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Draft:OComainDraft

[edit]
Draft:OComainDraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)​

This is a WP:POVFORK. The Ó_Comáin article already exists. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Asilvering may I ask why Bastun is attempting to delete the draft article when there is an ongoing Talk discussion here Kellycrak88 (talk) 11:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was already explained to you in the section you linked. It is a WP:POVFORK. We do not improve articles by having a draft and live version of an article; we work on the live version. It's the way Wikipedia has worked for 24 years. There is no reason to change that now. Work on the live article, where everyone can see your work, rather than a tiny number of editors who are aware of your draft being expected to follow updates. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, note I could have just replaced the draft with a redirect to the live article, as generally, drafts of articles aren't kept when there's already an article. It's possible an admin may still do that. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This does appear to be a CFORK of the original article. It is hard to read through much of the llm-discussion, but in doing so I'm not seeing how this Draft will help. Part of the past issues were huge-scale changes that were hard to parse, and the creation of a separate draft reinforces that challenge. This could be userfied, but it doesn't really work that edits to the draft are done which are then moved to the actual page. Better to keep all the edit history together. CMD (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly oppose this deletion nomination. The draft was created in good faith due to NEW secondary sources. This was not an attempt at a POV fork, but a required refresh in light of new matertial. I created a pre-emptive talk page discussion before any edits and, in fact, this draft page was recommended by an admin (@Asilvering) for section-by-section review.
More concerning, however, is that this nomination comes after repeated dismissive commentary from Bastun and Fram—accusing me of bad faith, suggesting I “move away from all related articles,” stating I “expect minions,” and that Irish clan content like this "belongs on Wordpress, not Wikpiedia". Bias against Irish clan material as a subject category—is not neutrality—it’s selective gatekeeping. Scottish clans are broadly covered under a dedicated WikiProject.
I’ve improved the article using reliable sources, community input, and transparent drafting. If there are flaws, I’m happy to fix them collaboratively. But deletion here would punish good-faith editing and send the wrong message about openness to cultural history on Wikipedia. Kellycrak88 (talk) 12:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Irish clan content absolutely has a place on Wikipedia. What you are doing, though, is adding WP:OR and WP:SYNTH that is poorly sourced and has included multiple copyright violations, reads as promotional, contains appeal to authority language, and is not WP:NPOV. Perfectly fine for a privately hosted clan website (except for the copyright violations, obviously!), not so much for an encyclopedia. When the problems with copyright violations were pointed out, your response is to say you'll just email scans to editors in future?! Requiring editors to stumble across a reference on the talk page to a separate draft article where "improvements" are being carried out, where we are expected to changes to the draft article, and the main article? That is not how Wikipedia works. This has been pointed out to you many times, but WP:IDHT. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the latest salvo in a content dispute where both sides have, for a long time now, continuously assumed the worst of each other, making it completely impossible to reach any sort of consensus. You can see some of this even in the back-and-forth above: Kellycrak maintaining that there is some kind of bias against Irish clan material as a subject category (they have been repeatedly explained that this is not the case, and that their contributions have issues with sourcing and WP:DUE), Bastun acting as though there is something deeply nefarious or incompetent in Kellycrak's attempts to take feedback, eg When the problems with copyright violations were pointed out, your response is to say you'll just email scans to editors in future?! (the copyright violations referred to here were to post images of sources to Commons, so other editors could see the text - an obvious copyvio, and a situation where editors very commonly email copies of sources to each other when necessary, eg for WP:GAN purposes). -- asilvering (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That my repeated attempts to get the editors involved to calmly and politely discuss specific issues of disagreement has been characterized below as continuous and quite baffling defense by Asilvering is a pretty good illustration of the problem. I'd be at ANI suggesting mutual IBANs if I thought it would do any good, but since that would basically cede first-mover advantage to Kellycrak, that's obviously not ideal. Good luck, MfD regulars. -- asilvering (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as completely unreliable WP:OR with POV issues added. Today, I said about another draft by the same editor:

"The Inisfallen sources seem to pose problems quite regularly, in Draft:Célechair mac Commáin as well the claim is made that "The Annals of Inisfallen (AI705.1) state: "Bellum Corco Mruad, in quo cecidit Célechair mac Commáin." (“The battle of Corco Mruad, in which Célechair son of Commán fell.”)" The actual Annals say "AI705.1 Kl. Flann Fína son of Oswy, king of the Saxons, rested." Basically, every single thing you post needs to be doublechecked as much of it is just wrong. "

So what do they do just now, under the guise of "source review"[1]: add a reference "1. The Annals of Inisfallen 704/5 Bellum Corco Mruad, in quo cecidit Célechair mac Commáin. " (layout original).

Despite the continuous and quite baffling defense by Asilvering, it's time to delete this draft (and others in the same vein), and either restrict the editor involved or boot them off Wikipedia completely. He has been a timesink for months, with continued copyright violations (not just the ones discussed above by Asilvering, but uploading someone else photo's as their own, or copyvio text which had to be removed today), misrepresentation of sources, copying sources from other articles without checking them, and so on. Fram (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fram writes: it's time to delete this draft (and others in the same vein), and either restrict the editor involved or boot them off Wikipedia completely. He has been a timesink for months. Those are conduct issues that are out of scope of MFD. I think that the editors at MFD should avoid trying to decide the content issue of deleting this draft when the conduct is complicating things. This is a dumpster fire, and we should not worry about whether to rescue papers from the dumpster or throw papers into the burning dumpster. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The conduct isn't complicating things, it is making it more clear that this is an unhelpful attempt to get their POV into the article by writing it separately and then giving an ultimatum at the article talk page. Fram (talk) 06:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1 TarnishedPathtalk 08:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As you very well know @Fram from our ongoing Talk, I said I'm currently working through the sourcing with a fine tooth comb. It's a DRAFT page!
According to Cotter; Annals of Inisfallen in 751 (Mac Airt 1951, 110) notes the death in Aran of Colmán mac Commain.
@Fram once again, instead of constructive feedback, you’ve chosen to escalate things into a personal attack. "booted off Wikipedia completely"—this isn’t critique, it’s hostility. It's nearly every interaction I’ve had with you, and it’s not in line with WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, or WP:AGF. Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What has a 751 entry for Colman to do with a 704/705 entry for Celechair? You do nothing substantial with feedback, making the samy type of mistakes or even the exact same mistakes over and over again, and then answer completely besides the point, like here. Fram (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The citation in the lead is for the name appearing "in Irish annals as early as the 8th century" so yes it's relevant, Colmán mac Commain appears there, I've also added Celechair correct referencing (Gibson and Cotter suggest they're brothers). Kellycrak88 (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which doesn´t explain why you added a completely wrong reference here, while claiming that you were actually doing a source review and when it had been already pointed out to you today that you made the exact same error on another draft before. The kind of issue we have had way too often already. Fram (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not following you. The 3 subpages I'm not working on yet. What 's the point if this page gets deleted. The correct citation is in the lead now for "which appears in Irish annals as early as the 8th century" if you still see a problem with it let me know and I'll fix. Kellycrak88 (talk) 20:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:OComainDraft&oldid=1292522111"