Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Electronic cigarette

 __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  Fait accompli, already redirected on behalf of. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Electronic cigarette



 * Delete. This draft is no longer being used to update the article. The protection was lifted a long time ago. User:MSGJ was helping out with the edit protected requests for the mainspace page. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 22:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Were edits in this draft added to the article? In that case it should be kept for history attribution purposes. Bosstopher (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * History merge if easy, or do whatever is required to retain a complete author list for the mainspace article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The author list of the draft is a subset of the author list of the mainspace article. Redirect to Electronic cigarette.  No further action for attribution required.  No reason for deletion, reference to the draft is as reasonable as reference to any previous version of the mainspace article.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
A history merge is better than a redirect IMO. I don't see a benefit for a redirect. After an editor is done with a sandbox it is usually deleted rather than requesting for a history merge. QuackGuru ( talk ) 01:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A benefit of redirecting is that it makes a very simple statement that everything is now located and ongoing atthe target, and it avoids the silly busywork of creating a useless page to delete a once useful page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A redirect is used for mainspace articles. There are no useful links to the draft for a redirect. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 17:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A redirect happens by default when a Draft article is moved to mainspace. That is all that is called for here.  Redirects are cheap and have many small benefits.  There is no reason for deletion here.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is easier for an admin to just delete it and I don't see any benefits for a redirect or keeping an old draft. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 00:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You're just wasting peoples time, creating an MfD nomination, asking for a community discussion, expecting an admin to act, all for an innocuous page that should have been redirected previously. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I got reverted after I blanked/tagged the page by an admin. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 04:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You didn't blank it, you applied an inappropriate CSD template. WP:CSD is one of the most firmly worded policies there is, abuse of it is taken very seriously.  You should not delete things "because they are no longer needed".  You delete things that should never have been created.   --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I created Draft:Ayurveda. Now I'm done with it. What tag should I use instead? I should of created a sandbox not a draft. A draft is for potential new articles. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 04:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If it were completely your creation, you could have tagged it db-g7. I see there are other authors, did any contribute creatively?  If you had copied it to your userspace, you could tag it db-u1.  You should not have forked it to Draft space.  If edits were needed, request edit while protected, or request unprotection.  Forking of content is a menace to WP:Copyrights compliance, it complicates attribution.  In future, I recommend that you only sandbox in your own userspace, and then db-u1 when done.  In this case, if it was not used at all, you can request its deletion, otherwise, just redirect, checking that all its substantive authors are authors of the mainspace article.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I made the edit request a while ago and now Draft:Ayurveda is no longer needed. A redirect will be a revert. A MFD will get more community input. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 05:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Noteswork is an author of the draft, and not an author of the mainspace article. That makes it complicated.  Deletion is not an option becuase it will violate Noteswork's rights.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ask User:MSGJ to sort out the mess. He seems to know what is going on.  I am definitely not a supportive of creating forks to sidestep article protection.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think a history merge is necessary for Draft:Ayurveda to not violate ediotrs' rights. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 05:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * What is the benefit of a redirect when the redirect is not used for anything? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 06:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I dispute your suffixed premise. It is very hard for you to know that no one will ever have any use for it or the version information stored behind it.
 * It (1) neatly covers the no longer needed versions, (2) points anyone interested in what was there previously to the current versions, (3) maintains functionality of any incoming links including an editor's bookmarks, and (4) maintains edit histories and authorship information.
 * Also note Redirects are cheap. Far cheaper than an MfD discussion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It is not possible to do a history merge here because the page histories run parallel to each other. WP:Parallel histories. The situation here is not what history-merging is intended for. The only thing that can be done here is to  redirect, so that the edit history here is not destroyed. Deleting this page would destroy the attribution, which makes the article a CC-BY-SA or GFDL violation. 103.6.158.193 (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Suggest WP:TROUTing the draft creator for misusing draftspace to evade the intent of page protection.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not create this particularly draft. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 23:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed you did not. It was all User:MSGJ.  He should be advised that doing this can make things very complicated for authorship attribution, and that during page protection, editors are either supposed to take a break or use the talk page.  Again I note that the only substantial authors, him and you, and both authors of the mainspace page, and so there is no absolute copyright issue, and the redirection is the best way to deal with it now, with a note that the page should preferably have never been created.  If someone must sandbox, sandbox in their own userspace.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What should be done about the other draft? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 05:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it would take just a few seconds for an admin to delete the useless redirect. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It would, but others are saying that there's no reason to trash the draft. As the IP notes, a history merge would make a mess.  It's already been redirected, so I'll close this momentarily as Fait accompli, already redirected.  Nyttend (talk) 02:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I can't close it myself: I can't find a closed MFD page, and I don't know what templates are normally used, so I'm not able to. If you know what you're doing, please add the "close" templates to this page and copy/paste my first statement so that it appears as the closing statement.  Nyttend (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2015 (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.