Draft talk:Generation Beta

Help!

Someone please help add sources to the draft page and expand it! Lil’ French (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I have improved the draft page and have suggested merging the two Gen Beta drafts. Rager7 (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Lil’ French (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Merge

Also, I support a merge between the two drafts for Gen Beta. Rager7 (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The reason I selected the user draft as the target is because that was the earlier page (from Nov 2023). It was also in mainspace and deleted at WP:Articles for deletion/Generation Beta, and restored. Jay 💬 18:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, I think a merge makes the most sense as both cover the same topic albeit different aspects of the same generation. Rager7 (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes! I also agree with your point that both drafts should be merged, because they are both talking about Gen Beta! Lil’ French (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Support a merge, but having the page at Draft:Generation Beta would make it a more obviously collaborative one. Belbury (talk) 10:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

For that I suggest moving Draft:Generation Beta to Draft:Generation Beta (2), and then moving User:Wesoree/Generation Beta to Draft:Generation Beta. Jay 💬 10:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

If you'll notice I've done work on Draft:Generation Beta and it is now up for review, which I believe it can pass, while User:Wesoree/Generation Beta can't. Any changes should be made to Generation Beta. Replacing it with Wesoree/Generation Beta would be a step backwards. Dan Bloch (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Right, the contents of Draft:Generation Beta should get into User:Wesoree/Generation Beta and that should become the new Draft:Generation Beta. A merge is not a replace. Jay 💬 12:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

This all seems like a very strange discussion. The two articles are extremely similar and there's almost no content. The oldest member of this generation is two days old--there isn't much to say about them. Why are we talking about creating extra work? Dan Bloch (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

which I believe it can pass Wouldn't it be better (and easier) to just edit over the redirect at Generation Beta? And have all of these drafts history merge or whatever into Generation Beta? People can take Generation Beta back to AfD (a second time) if they don't believe it warrants an article; this is much faster than waiting days or weeks (or even months!) for the draft to get accepted. Some1 (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Sweet! I had no idea that was an option. This is now done. Any further changes should be main in mainspace to Generation Beta Dan Bloch (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much it's an option in this case. The closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation Beta explicitly recommended that any article deleted through an AFD must go through AFC and not be moved directly into main space, and from the stub status of this current draft (it's the one after alpha and they're being born into "a world of artificial intelligence") I assume we're still in WP:G4 range of whatever the version deleted in the March AfD was. That AfD mentioned "non-serious coverage" and the current sources on the draft don't seem too weighty. Belbury (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the wording of a closing summary overrides general Wikipedia policy. WP:G4 specifically applies only to "sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion", and the new version has changes to address the shortcomings of the old version. My reading is that a deletion now would have to be done through another AfD. Dan Bloch (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Yep, and there's way more reliable sources covering Gen Beta now than there were on 22 February 2024. Some1 (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)