Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Dreams for Sale (film)

 __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:  speedied G13 by RHaworth, so there's no need to leave this open anymore. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Dreams for Sale (film)


This is a stale draft which was created last July by a long-established editor who doesn't have to use the AFC process, literally just one hour before they created the same article in mainspace and proceeded to vastly expand it there. Then after a couple of minor edits by another editor in August, it was never touched again by anybody until an editor on old-draft cleanup duty resubmitted it to the AFC approval queue two weeks ago -- but there was literally no point in doing so, because the mainspace article already exists and has already been expanded well beyond this, so there's literally nothing here that could actually be added to the mainspace article to expand it. The AFC queue is backlogged enough as it is without needing the reviewers to actually look at the outdated first draft of an article that's already been in mainspace for almost a year. It should just be deleted as a duplicate that there's no need to retain. Bearcat (talk) 04:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - obviously per nom. I could move this to article space, and then it could be speedied under WP:A10.     78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 05:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete opps should have redirected that or maybe histmergeLegacypac (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Convert the page to a redirect to Dreams for Sale (2012 film). That's all that ever needed doing, no need for MfD.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A redirect would literally be pointless. Preserving a ghost link from a title that nobody's ever going to need to use or consult for any reason, that forms no part of the mainspace article's edit history, and literally has no reason whatsoever for it besides "because it's possible", would serve no purpose whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 06:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "Redirect" is less cost than MfD-participation-close-delete with a later archived MfD page. Cleaning up at lower cost is the point.  There is no problem with a bit of stuff in the history of the redirect.  Any editor can, and should on discovering it, do the redirect.  Should they be mistaken, it is easily reverted.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of whether there's a problem with there being content in the history of the redirect — but the value of retaining content in the history of the redirect is strictly coterminous with the extent to which anybody will ever need to consult that history for content reasons. If that need is absent, so is the value of retaining the redirect's edit history. Bearcat (talk) 07:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's the cost of redirecting versus deleting versus doing nothing. Doing nothing and leaving it live has cost because it exists in maintenance categories wanting attention and because random editors might be confused by it.  what is the cost of leaving the history accessible behind a redirect versus accessible to admins only behind a deleted title?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Just a note to add that I've literally now caught 20 other examples of this exact same thing happening in a review of Category:AfC submissions with the same name as existing articles. Those of us who work on submission reviews really don't need the added clutter to our already extreme backlog, so could all y'all who work with old stale drafts please be more careful about this kind of thing in the future? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 07:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess I might go there and check them and redirect as appropriate? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Bearcat all come out of maintenace categories. If found to replicate another page and found to not be better than the mainspace page, decline as a dup and let it go G13. While this process may increase the workload at AfC a little, it results in eventual deletion of userspace dups (fake articles) without using MfD and for which there is no CSD available. Also before being too critical of my occasional additions to AfD look at the number of pages I clear out of AfC via CSD/MfD/blanking/redirection to eliminate resubmissions of useless pages. Legacypac (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem with just declining such a page as a duplicate is that it's going to confuse people: the person who created the page a year or two ago is going to get notified that their draft was declined, but they're not the person who submitted it to the AFC approval queue, so it's just going to be a "what the hell?" thing that may confuse them into thinking the mainspace copy is up for deletion, if they're not lifers like us. So that's not a viable response in situations like this: the only viable solution is for whoever's sorting out old drafts to be more careful about not sticking pages like this into the submission review queue in the first place. Many of these pages, in fact, would have already been immediately G13able the moment you saw them, but now have to wait out until September before they become G13able again precisely because of the unnecessary resubmission. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not quite, as userspace pages are not G13able unless tagged or submitted to AfC. If a page is in Draft space it would be gone after 6 months already. Legacypac (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This was never in userspace — it's always been Draft. Draft pages don't just automatically disappear after six months, either — some get caught promptly, yes, but lots don't and just malinger for a year or more. Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

This one is still G13 eligible. Must have been off the G13 list and looked potentially notable. That is is already in mainspace says that assessment is correct but I missed it already existed. We can correct thst now. Legacypac (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2018 (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.