Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Existential risk

 __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 to Global catastrophic risk. Whether it's deleted or redirected doesn't make much difference. I'm opting to redirect as the least destructive method, and to keep the page history intact.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 19:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Existential risk

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

It looks like this content has been integrated into Global catastrophic risk. -- Beland (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Redirect to above article. Delete Dronebogus (talk) 01:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I don't see a reason to redirect a Draft page to mainspace, in this case. -- Green  C  02:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ob, right, I didn’t think about that. Dronebogus (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Global catastrophic risk. I declined this as mostly duplicating the article one-and-one-half years ago, and said it should be merged.  It has been deleted as G13 since then, and rescued from extinction.  We don't need it drifting around forever.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yes, a draft can be redirected to an article. It is done all the time, whenever a draft is accepted.  Occasionally that is done to a different title, if the reviewer changes the article title, e.g., to disambiguate it.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2022 (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.