Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Hurricane Fabio (2018)

 __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:  keep. As in "not delete". Whether it should remain a redirect or not can be discussed elsewhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Hurricane Fabio (2018)

 * – (View MfD)

It is rather pointless to be working on a draft for a storm that is not notable. Impacts were minimal and Fabio was not exceptional in intensity, duration, or size, especially in the context of the hyperactive 2018 Pacific hurricane season. Multiple times, users have attempted to link this draft as a "main article". The draft is poorly written as well. Jasper Deng (talk) 08:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's a draft, and it really should be expanded with proper sources rather than deleted. The subject is interesting, not for the damage that it did, but for its history.  It is a tropical storm that crossed Central America from the Caribbean basin to the eastern North Pacific basin.  An article is in order if proper sources can be found.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that part about crossing over is wrong, and there are no sources that give it more than passing mention, nothing that cannot be accommodated in 2018 Pacific hurricane season.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Then why not boldly redirect? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. Redirected.  Draftspace should not be used for SPINOUTs without article talk page consensus supporting.  No reason to delete anything here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Because we should not be having cross-namespace redirects. Hence why I chose deletion over redirection.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah. A common mistake.  WP:CNR sounds general, but it is only about linking mainspace to the backrooms.  There is nothing undesirable about userspace, draftspace, projectspace or any talk space linking to articles.  Indeed, every time a draft is promoted to mainspace, a trailing redirect is left behind, and every time a draft is merged, the draft history is retained behind the redirect.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. No valid reason to delete. No valid reason to bring it to MfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Redirection is possible if a though WP:BEFORE has been done, but if there is any possibility of development into a valid article, as suggested by, then simply leave it for anyone who may choose to work on it.
 * Again, there is no such possibility in this case.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - There is no need to redirect, and no need to delete. The fact that the nominator says that an article is impossible is not a reason in itself to delete a draft.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep since it's just a draft and not obvious crap. It's now been redirected anyway. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - In my opinion, which is worth what you paid for it, the editor who redirected it was wrong, because that is contrary at least to the spirit of the notice that an article should not be blanked, moved, or merged while deletion discussion is in progress. I am aware that User:SmokeyJoe thinks that unilateral redirection is a good way to resolve MFDs after they have started.  I think that is completely wrong although a good-faith error.  Robert McClenon (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * A redundant draft. Harmless. Probably worthless.  How many Wikipedians need to discuss it?  Jasper as assessed it, and he is perfectly capable of fixing it, which is to redirect.  The redirect is cheap, easy, tells the editors where to go if they were interested, and in the unlikely event of Jasper being mistaken, any editor can revert.  If there is a disagreement, only then come here.  In general, I think we need a rule that article spinouts must not be drafted without first being proposed on the article talk page; anything else promotes content forking. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:21, 9 October 2019 (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.