Talk:Manic Dream Pixie

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum

Pop music Low‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Adelaide Low‑importance

	Australia portal Manic Dream Pixie is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Adelaide (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Improper publishing

@Evelyn Marie a few things that need said. One, you can't just copy-paste a page from draft space to mainspace. This runs into issues such as separating page history, which makes said history harder for other editors to view and loses attribution for those edits. Two, because this article was in the mainspace and sent here to draftspace via an AfD, it is improper to judge for yourself that the article is now ready for mainspace again because you added one new source to it without at least asking about consensus. That consensus should include a page reviewer (see the part of WP:DRAFT#Publishing a draft where it mentions submitting for review) and other editors involved in work on the draft. In case you hadn't noticed, I made additional modifications to the article while it's been in draftspace, meaning you are no longer the sole primary editor. It's good form to include other primary editors in the when-to-publish decision. And it happens to be that I disagree with that decision at this time. If I were a draft reviewer, I would reject this as is. One additional Rolling Stone source does not make our subject notable beyond the previous AfD judgment. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it literally does. NME and Rolling Stone are two highly regarded publications. It’s a stub article. It has been covered by several notable publications at this point. I disagree with your opinion that it’s not ready for article space. I drafted the original article, and I never copy pasted. I reverted the article to its PREVIOUS state pre-redirect, and I have the bulk of the edit history on the original version. You are not a primary editor. I did the bulk of the work on the article.

I severely disagree with your opinion on this. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 21:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your "reverted" article includes the mention of the "Stars Are Blind" sample and the source with it, neither of which were in the article before I added them post-draftification. And sure, maybe I'm not actually a primary editor (looking back at the history, it seems I changed less than I thought I did), but you're still forgoing the existing edit history by an improper move, and moving an article to mainspace without gathering consensus for its place there despite previously established consensus against that. You can disagree, sure, but disagreement means there's not established consensus. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the mainspace article should be redirected, and the draft should be worked on per how the deletion discussion was closed. If the draft then becomes substantial enough to be moved back, then a histmerge of the pre-existing mainspace article history and the draft history should take place. Problems solved. Ss112 21:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that makes the most sense to me. Thank you. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn has stated on Talk:Manic Dream Pixie to "do what you want at this point", so I've now redirected the mainspace article. Ss112 21:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]