Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:52nd Street (Album) Track 5

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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:  Redirect. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Draft:52nd Street (Album) Track 5

 * (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 03:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 03:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Non-notable song, an album track which did not chart. The user who started this draft has been edit-warring similar drafts into mainspace. Binksternet (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect, with temporary protection. A valid drafting idea, but the IP is wrong, mainspace may not link to draftspace.  I think it is very unlikely the community will agree to a standalone article for this song, as the appropriate place for everything that can be said is at 52nd Street (album).  No opposition to "delete and redirect", if someone wants to use deletion as a behavioural remediation hammer, but the redirect serves to inform future editors that improvement to coverage of the song should be done at the article 52nd Street (album), and any associated discussion belongs Talk:52nd Street (album).  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am happy to go with User:Metropolitan90's "keep", consistent with a redirect being reverted by someone who wants to work with it, as long as it is clear to the one person that no mainspace article may link to DraftSpace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - the song itself may have adequate coverage to meet GNG. But this draft doesn't incorporate any sources, and so really serves no valid purpose. I disagree with redirecting since "52nd Street (Album) Track 5" is not a likely term that a reader would type in. Rlendog (talk) 01:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "disagree with redirecting"? "not a likely term that a reader would type in" is a reason for deletion of a redirect in mainspace, but not in draftspace.  In draftspace, there are reasons to keep:
 * (1) as a clear message to the previous author, that they should go to the redirect target.
 * (2) to avoid broken bookmarks by the previous author.
 * (3) In anticipation of a future new editor thinking to draft under this title. As it happened once, it mus be assumed possible to happen again.
 * Note especially, redirects are cheap, much cheaper than deletion, and this is not mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep in draftspace. This draft is not suitable at this time for moving to the mainspace, as it is completely unsourced and does not establish notability under WP:NSONGS. However, the draft was created only five days ago, and it may be possible to establish notability for the song. (I participated in an AfD for another Billy Joel album track and helped it pass the AfD.) Per the Manual of Style, this draft should not be linked to from the mainspace while it is still a draft, and if it is ever moved to the mainspace, it should be moved to the title Stiletto (song). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Recent draft that has legitimate possibilities, so there is no good reason for deletion. Misbehavior by an editor should be dealt with more directly. --RL0919 (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 03:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Had it not been created by an IP I would've straight up !voted Keep however this was obviously created by one and so in the next 2-3 weeks the IP would've gained a new IP and this probably would be left to rot ... and then in a month to a year will end up here again, I have absolutely no objections to an editor recreating this (or going to WP:UNDELETE) (Even if the IP creates an account I would happily !vote Keep but at the moment this would end up being forgotten and abandoned so better off deleted and recreated by someone who's perhaps more serious about editing it and getting it in to articlespace). – Davey 2010 Talk 18:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * For the record, charting as a hit single is not the only way a pop/rock song can attain notability as a separate topic from its parent album. It's certainly the most common way, but it's not the only one that exists under WP:NSONGS: we do have some articles about songs that were only ever album tracks, but can still be reliably sourced over WP:GNG for other reasons. Accordingly, keep for now to allow the chance at improvement, with no prejudice against revisiting this in two or three months if none is forthcoming. Bearcat (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This hasn't been touched since August so chances are the IPs have either gained new IP addresses or the MFD's scared them off .... Either way it's not going to be improved now (if ever) unless an editor decides to take it under their wing which is unlikely. – Davey 2010 Talk 22:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I am less concerned about the author being a long absent IP than about this being content forking in a place that no one will see it, combined with zero sourcing. It is great that people want to expand coverage - that is the working model of Wikipedia.  However, the place to do the expansion is in the article that already nominally covers this topic, and where other editors will interact with the new editor enthusiastic to add content.  Working on mainspace topics in draftspace weakens community interaction, takes the focus away from the real product, and is bad for the project.  These things when discovered should be redirected.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Except as I've just said directly above there's been no edits to this since August so where are these "other editors" because I don't see 'em, That aside this should never in a million years be redirected because redirect is just silly and makes no sense whatsoever. – Davey 2010 Talk 01:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Unless your assumption is that the project is completed, an obvious working assumption is that if someone tries it, it should be assumed that someone will try it again.
 * The redirect makes sense because:
 * The original author may return looking for their work, and the redirect sends them to where they should have been working
 * Another editor may think this is a topic worth drafting, and when they try the redirect where tell them where the editing should be done.
 * In principle, more than conceivably, the draft may contain useful contributions. It is not sensible to ask MfD volunteers to review for this everytime, so just redirect, enabling any edit to review the contributions at their leisure.  This is, in fact, how the whole wiki works, except for where deletion is involved, and in general (unlike this nomination) deletion requires a good reason.
 * Someone working in mainspace may want to look for related material. They can, and should, try the tool WhatLinksHere.  It will reveal redirects, and redirect from userspace and draft space will be worth investigating, for possibly useful material, even possibly useful ideas, in the versions in the history behind the redirect.
 * Also note:
 * If the worthless harmless things are redirected, then the editor cleaning up can just do it, no dramah, not four week MfD, no clogging of an important forum with busywork
 * Redirects are cheap and harmless. No one peruses draftspace unless looking for drafts, it is not part of the project-proper.
 * Every proper drafting experience in draftspace that does involve unnecessary administrator function results in a draftspace to mainspace redirect. These things are normal.
 * And even if you do assume that the project is completed (extreme Immediatism), that is no reason to page-by-page bring draftspace to mainspace standard. Better, on that assumption, to just delete draftspace.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 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.