Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ipsita Pati

 __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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Ipsita Pati

 * — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 01:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 06:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 06:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The author has created Ipsita Pati in article space. As a result, this draft is redundant. Either the article should be nominated for deletion, in which case this draft can go, or the article should be kept, in which case this draft can go. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect is the best thing to do for multiple reasons. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 06:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - No one's going to search "Draft:Ipsita Pati" so it's a pointless redirect, I know redirects are cheap but IMHO this is would be a useless redirect. – Davey 2010 Talk 01:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Redirects are cheap.  Deletions are not cheap.  This would be a pointless deletion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope what's pointless is creating unneeded redirects for the sake of it, We have WP:UNDELETE for a reason. – Davey 2010 Talk 02:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The reason for WP:UNDELETE is not so that everything can be deleted until someone wants to see it. Creating a redirect over redundant content is far less work than the pointless creation of MfD discussions seeking consensus to delete them.  These discussions are busywork, a net-negative to the project, and should be discouraged.  Come to MfD only if there is a good reason note to redirect.  See WP:ATD.  Editors should not seek administrative actions to fix things unnecessarily.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Deleting and or restoring a draft isn't hard work - It's done all of the time and I would go as far as to say consensus is more or less to delete these here too, I get you're an inclusionist and want everything on this site kept however somethings are extremely pointless to keep and serve no purpose to the project, Calling these a net-negative is just assuming bad faith and in all fairness this is the whole point of MFD - to discuss userspace crap and drafts, That aside these redirects need to serve a purpose which these don't and should be deleted accordingly. – Davey 2010 Talk 12:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This MfD is about cleaning up following someone's Copy-Paste. They should have WP:Moved the page. The proper move action leaves a redirect behind. It's a net negative because the is more work in an MfD discussion than space wastage in a redirect, and asserting a need for deletion means that an admin is required for every such trivial fix. A redirect is a fix doable by any editor. This is not about inclusionism, it is about busywork. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No they shouldn't They've done the correct thing and came here, It's not a net-negative whatsoever - Infact it's a net-positive because we're leaving less crap around, Creating redirects like this just for the sake of it is a net negative on all forms and as I said it serves to purpose to you, I nor the project, I shan't be replying to this anymore because it's beginning to be a waste of time however I will say this - You should let people have their opinions instead of replying to everyone who disagrees with your outcome and continuing discussions to no end, You're more than entitled to disagree with me but instead of constantly replying it may be a wiser choice for you to say your !vote and that's it, I don't question you on every MFD so maybe you should give it a rest?, Happy editing. – Davey 2010 Talk 20:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * No they shouldn't what? Drafters should not WP:MOVE their drafts when they think they are done.  If that is what you are saying, it is novel, and stupid.  If it is something else, can you please be clearer?
 * Who are you talking about? User:Ipsitapati, the author, or User:Robert McClenon, the reviewer, MfD nominator and AfD nominator?
 * Are you now saying that Copy-Paste is the right thing to do? This MfD is seeking deletion of the actual drafting versions of a mainspace article.  The history was split by an improper Copy-Paste action.  It could be fixed by redirecting with a null edit or a note on the article talk page.  Deleting the early history of an existing article is the wrong thing to do.
 * This page is no more crap than the early history of any typical page. If you are right, does that mean you are next going to support deletion of early histories of all pages, where the early history versions don't meet some particular threshold?
 * The redirect serves to point future editors interested in drafting, or past editors who drafted here, to the mainspace article where all future edits should be done. It keeps offsite bookmarks alive.  It nicely packages the earlier split history, which should be retained?
 * Why are we here? Is it because User:Robert McClenon repeatedly declined the submission and is put out because the author ignored his comments and took it direct to mainspace?  He is seeking deletion of both the early history (here) and the copy-pasted and subsequent versions at Articles for deletion/Ipsita Pati, and as it looks now, the mainspace article will not be deleted.  I have commented somewhere before (Wikipedia_talk:Drafts/Archive_5) that I think it is a problem that AfC reviewers are using a higher standard than AfD.  There is a real problem requiring action there, and this deletion seeks to hide the evidence.
 * Sorry if you don't like to be questioned, but you keep making superficial assertions that are wrong ("No one's going to search "Draft:Ipsita Pati" so it's a pointless redirect" = faulty reasoning; "this is would be a useless redirect" I have listed at least three points; "Deleting and or restoring a draft isn't hard work - It's done all of the time" it is not done all the time), and your !vote if unchallenged will lead to the wrong result. It is my fault that you repeatedly make the same wrong assertions and fail to engage in logical analysis?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There's been nothing illogical in anything I've said nor have I made any wrong assertions but ofcourse your next reply is going to be lecturing me on how I have, Couldn't give a toss, I love being questioned and I'm always happy to answer any questions but with you it's like a bloody interrogation but anyway I shall allow you to have wp:the last word as this whole discussion is becoming a waste of time. – Davey 2010 Talk 22:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect - Disagree with redirecting but this is gonna get redirected regardless of whatever the hell I say so screw it, If you can't beat 'em join 'em. – Davey 2010 Talk 22:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - Draft and the article are about different people. If the only concern was article of the same name already present, then the draft should be renamed. Pratyush (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This does not seem to be correct. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 01:24, 11 October 2016 (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.