Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Central South Slavic

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. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Central South Slavic

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 14:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be deleted because (1) to a significant extent it merely duplicates Serbo-Croatian; (2) it has been edited several times, but only minimally and trivially, in the past 13 months; (3) its creator hasn't worked on it since October 2018 and the only other substantive editor hasn't worked on it since March 2019; (4) it is full of lint errors: Table tag that should be deleted (2), Misnested tag with different rendering in HTML5 and HTML4 (1), Fostered content (3), Missing end tag (2), and Stripped tags (1) – many of which are unusually difficult to fix; (5) but mainly I believe that this article is never going to graduate to Article namespace. Anomalocaris (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Only the first reason would be relevant to deletion here. I am certainly prepared to work on it , and to fix the formatting errors, but the question is to what extent the article actually does duplicate. The article before it was restored as a draft had been previously Speedy A10 redirected as an "exact copy" of first, Serbo-Croatian, and then South Slavic Languages ) Considering that this is a politically sensitive area,, this needs careful consideration, I hope by an expert. DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

checking further, the one that matches closest is Serbo-Croatian. But there sems additional material in the present draft; Ithin it could rationally be separated out as a separate ptopic, but the whole group of articles need rationalization. DGG ( talk ) 02:32, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some of these errors are because there are two versions of the article on the page. I wasn't sure which to remove, so I've left it alone.--Auric talk 23:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing here to warrant an acceleration of WP:CSD#G13. It's a plausible article, and is well-cited. --Doug Mehus T·C 18:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If this duplicates or nearly duplicates Serbo-Croatian, then it should be compared against the article so that any differences can be addressed. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 14:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Here's a diff between the version of Serbo-Croatian at the time the draft was created and the current version of the draft: [1]. The changes consist in a rejigging of the infobox, a change to the first sentence and the pasting of a slightly earlier version of the article again above everything else. No additional new text has been added and no meaningful changes to the text can be discerned. This draft possesses nothing salvageable, and has been a massive waste of time: for the unfortunate AfC reviewers, for the wikignomes who've had to fix the bizarre formatting errors introduced with the first copy-and-paste, and for us here trying to get to the bottom of what's going on. If the author comes back to wikipedia, they should be advised to work off a clean copy of the article instead of returning to this mess. – Uanfala (talk) 13:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Uanfala. If "promoted" to article it would be a A10 speedy (Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic), and it looks like it is going nowhere, so better edit the article, than to fork it on Draft:. - Nabla (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2020 (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.