Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Biography - A. Claudio G. Cuello

 __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:  delete. Salvio giuliano 14:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Biography - A. Claudio G. Cuello

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

This duplicates the existing article at Augusto Claudio Cuello. It is clearly just a cv/resume with an undisguised conflict of interests. Even if improved, there is no realistic prospect that this might be accepted either as a replacement for the existing article or as a supplement to it. DanielRigal (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete for various reasons, including being an unreferenced biography of a living person and being promotional. With "BIOGRAPHY" in front of the title, it isn't a likely search term in draft space, so that redirection is not in order.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as G11-promotional. This same version was attempted to be put in on the mainspaced article  and then was promptly reverted by  as "Wikipedia is not for posting your resume"   Future edits can just be done at the mainspace article and not this version.  AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 00:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Was going to add that the COI editor should make edit requests on the talk page. AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 15:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete duplicate resume, could be speedied under multiple obvious rationales Dronebogus (talk) 11:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete, a borderline G11 duplicate of an existing article. Nsk92 (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete as duplicate. --hroest 18:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. —  Sundostund  mppria  (talk / contribs) 16:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per others in this MfD, but not as a G11 case (borderline). Redirect per below discussion —Alalch E. 19:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Augusto Claudio Cuello: WP:SRE. Don’t waste time having formal discussions over something so simple and pointless. Anyone interested in Augusto Claudio Cuello should go to the article.  There is no harm in a CV in a draftspace redirect history, and it may even be useful. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect Don't understand all the delete pile-ons; if there's an exact duplicate subject already in mainspace, just redirect it. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Why would we want a redirect from draft space to article space? What use would that be to anybody? DanielRigal (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It will help the person who made the draft, when they return, whether from memory or their computer bookmark. They may be something in the history for the author to continue their thoughts from. Its costs nothing, deletion saves nothing.  Doing so routinely does waste resources in the MfD process. It’s possible if someone already tried to creat a draft in ignorance of the article, that someone else might do it again, and the redirect points them to where to improve existing content. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The person is the person. The author-autobiographer knows very well that the article exists, and has edited it in 2019, creating a revision equal to this draft: Special:Diff/931228477. They came back several years after that was reverted to create a page on Wikipedia with their "authorized" biography, wanting that to become an article instead of the current article. This is not an honest attempt at improving anything. —Alalch E. 03:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The the person is confused. I’m sure.  I can’t guess at what he thinks he is doing.  Deleting his contribution history can only confuse him further, certainly not help him.  Explaining WP:G7 to him might help him.
 * It’s possible he knows he is not supposed to edit his article personally, and the draft is a consequence of that line of thinking.
 * Of course, he should be advised to make suggestions on the article talk page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Would a redirect not confuse him more? Woop, suddenly your bookmark link doesn't work as expected! You're on a different page than the one you wanted to be on. You don't have a slightest idea what a redirect is. There's barely legible text on the target page that you've been redirected, but you've probably missed it. Deletion creates a message: Red notice. "Deleted". It will be easier for him to understand what is going on, and it will better convey the message that such unsourced autobiographical content is unwanted, and that any such pages should not be created. —Alalch E. 03:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirects send him to the right place, and come with a wonderful small header insert not saying where he was just redirected from, which invites a click, from which leads to seeing the link to the redirect history. No, I do not believe that the redirect would confuse him.
 * If he still has no idea what a redirect is, I cannot believe it for one second.
 * On the other hand, deletion is well know to exacerbate confusion. It’s seen in people recreating the content in the same place, or under slightly different titles, and for sure, the inability to find your own contribution history is very likely to result in confusion.
 * - SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I strongly doubt that he knows what page history is. He was able to repost the same content not because he accessed the article history, but because he copied it from another website, or a file on his computer. Edit: Regardless, I have decided to support redirecting as part of a more uniform approach to a situation like this. —Alalch E. 03:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. No need for a redirect, since there is no benefit to saving the text on Wikipedia's servers; the only upshot of that would be making it marginally easier to recreate text that should not exist. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2023 (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.