Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Israel Elwyn (IE)

 __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 Draft:Israel Elwyn. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 10:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Israel Elwyn (IE)

 * – (View MfD)

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @DGG with the reason "Duplicate submission"  F ASTILY   22:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - This submission doesn't provide some of the key detail. This is duplicate to Draft:Israel Elwyn, which has been declined once and should be declined again but not deleted.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Draft:Israel Elwyn. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ok to redirect, but what's the pt. of redirecting instead of deleting?  DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:ATD. Reduce administrative burdens for things that need administering.  As a rule, forks are fixed by redirecting one to the other, usually the newer to the older, and tell the newer editors where the older page is.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, on principle (again) - No rationale for deletion in this venue according to the relevant standards here has been presented, but rather an account of a failed speedy rationale. While nominations after declined speedies may be helpful often or on occasion at FfD and TfD, those are "discussion" venues while this is a "deletion" one; therefore, rationales by nominators here need more of a solid footing. tl;dr — nominations here based solely on declined speedies are not helpful. No prejudice against redirection. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 21:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding "", I respectfully disagree. In this case, the CSD nomination was created by an established, respected editor and sat unattended for 2 days.  It's quite possible DGG saw something we didn't, and referring the matter to XfD provides them with opportunity to share their thoughts.  -  F ASTILY   05:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed. CSD taggings are meant to be objective.  My guess is that DGG did this one by accident, and am curious of the explanation.  Alternatively, is this part of his slow and long running deletion policy experiments, seeing if the catch-all G6 is even more inclusive in draftspace.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Believing something is eligible for a speedy deletion criterion ≠ believing something is fit to be listed here. I often tell nominators that something is not suitable for this venue, but encourage them to request speedy deletion if appropriate. I agree that DGG is an established, well-respected editor, which means they are quite capable of listing something here if they desire. This discussion is a good example of the forwarded nominations being unproductive. Furthermore, this other discussion is a good example of why DGG may not have wanted this discussion started in the first place (purely an example, not speculative). More broadly but yet specific to this case, one might simply decide to wait for G13 to come around if their speedy is declined. In other cases, the guidance at e.g. WP:STALEDRAFT, WP:NMFD, or WP:ATD might make a listing innapropriate if something is deemed ineligible for the csd. Bottom line: deletion considerations are not linear, i.e. thinking something should be deleted cannot be generalized but must be considered in concurrence with the appropriate guidance surrounding each deletion-seeking method. As originally stated, I would not object if this were a discussion venue and not a  deletion  venue. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 08:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Godsy, that's utterly absurd. The first line of Miscellany for deletion literally states "Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept" (emphasis mine).  So if not here, then where?  You're entitled to your own opinion of course, but that doesn't magically make it some gospel everybody else must follow.  To my knowledge, there exists no policy restricting me or anyone else from referring a speedy deletion nomination to MfD.  I think that obviously bad CSD tags may be reverted, but everything else deserves, at minimum, an opportunity for discussion.  Consensus is one of the fundamental tenets of Wikipedia, and we should be encouraging discussion and open discourse whenever possible, not suppressing it.  -  F ASTILY   12:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course things are discussed in the generalized sense here. There is a distinction between a discussion and deletion venue that is poignant (which I attempted to expalin above), otherwise the distinction would not be made. Unless the reason in the speedy nomination is something that is normally accepted here for a deletion rationale according to the relevant guidance I have linked (and the forwarded ones have not necessarily from what I have seen), the discussion is unlikely to be fruitful. Consensus is of utmost important, but so is understanding the standards and nuances of a particular venue to achieve it in a net-positive way. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 22:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to debate semantics with you, that is incredibly petty and a waste of my time. To reiterate my previous reply, no policy prohibits me or anyone else from referring CSD nominations to MfD.  If you don't like these referrals, then do not comment on them; nobody is forcing you to do so.  -  F ASTILY   23:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not think I explained the distinction between deletion and discussion venues very well; I will reflect on that and do some digging (I think there is guidance, an essay, or post somewhere, etc. that does it better justice). Just because there may not be any formal guidance against them does not by implication mean that such forwardings a good idea/practice. Just as it is your prerogative to keep making such nominations until such a point where they are potentially deemed unfitting, it is mine to continue to comment on them (as I do on most discussions here) as I see fit (and I plan to). Warm regards, — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 23:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding "": yes, but that's just your opinion, and needless to say, I totally disagree. Perhaps some formal guidance on the matter would be a beneficial thing. -  F ASTILY   00:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not do it by accident, nor as a test, but as my understanding of one of the available options.
 * (1) My understanding of deletion policy is that G6 includes the removal of unhelpful duplicates that give no additional information and are not needed for attribution.  We could discuss that at WT:CSD. Not just me, but many other people do this with duplicate articles where the title does not form a useful redirect. I also think that when it would be a useful redirect in article space, there's standard practice to use a redirect.  What else should we do with such duplicate articles?
 * (2) If we mean to do something else with duplicate drafts that add no additional information or are needed for the attribution, and just leave them there for 6 months, that's possible also. Possible, but I do not see how it's helpful.  (and see below for why I think we should do it this way)
 * (3) My understanding and consistent practice for 12 years for speedies someone else nominates that I don't think should be speedy-deleted is: to either remove the speedy and leave a message saying why it shouldn't be deleted; to remove the speedy and suggest the nominator try Prod or XfD the nomination should try AfD; to send it to Prod if applicable; or to send it to XfD myself.  (and of course everyone else can and does  do likewise).
 * (4) But this is a speedy that  I myself  nominated that no other admin   agrees with enough to remove the article, or disagrees with enough to remove the speedy.  This rarely happens--90% of my speedy nominations get removed; 10% get the speedy removed.  If the speedy is removed I do like any other editor whose speedy gets removed: forget about it and let the article stand; edit the article;  use Prod when applicable; or use XfD.  If the item just sits there with the speedy tag still on , I conclude there is not agreement that it is an unquestionable deletion, so if I still want it deleted I use another deletion process.  I am rather curious what people think should be done with such a speedy otherwise.


 * I do not work at AfC or NPP primarily to delete drafts or articles. I work at AfC (and NPP) primarily to try to rescue articles and drafts, That's the reason I gave for becoming an admin, so I could see them to possibly rescue if they got deleted--see Requests for adminship/DGG.  In doing this, as I said at the time, I'll also see items that should be deleted.  Personally, I consider deletion  an interruption in why I work here, which is to rescue. They can work at deletion who actually like it --it's very often necessary, and I will do my share, but I do not like to do it.


 * Now, here's the part where I think there is disagreement: in considering drafts at AfC, I think it helps reduce the work (and, consequently, the backlog) if it is not necessary  to have to have multiple people look at unsatisfactory drafts multiple times. if they are never going to get improved, they should be removed as early as possible. If there is some chance of their being improved, they should be kept as long as there's a reasonable chance.  I don't myself see why other people disagree, but I know that they do.  If there's a settled policy, I will follow it. If there isn't, it's reasonable to try to find out what works best, in the spirit of BRD --it's how we ought to develop process.


 * The others who have commented, where exactly do you think I am right, and where wrong, for each of the points.  DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * DGG, I think you are wrong at (1), on the scope of G6. You would appear to be saying that G6 includes the generalization of WP:CSD beyond mainspace.  I think you are in widespread company in this error.  I think the solution to this common error is in part the addition of WP:NEWCSDs, not the continuation of widespread abuse of the deletion policy under the guise of G6.  There is a current WT:CSD thread on this at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion.  In particular, I am proposing a simple rule that CSD#G6 never applies to a page with a non-trivial history.
 * On this particular page, I think the answer to the problem is to redirect. I believe that a redirected title causes no further work for AfC or NPP, please tell me if I am wrong on that.  If and when the redirect target is deleted, the redirect with its history can be deleted per WP:G8.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * on each of the points?
 * On (2), I think the answer is “redirect” as I said.
 * On (3) and (4) what you write sounds fine. Is the issue the question of whether someone else should bring a declined speedy to XfD as if on your behalf? Interesting question, I can see both sides. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * (1)If we can agree on a new criterion, that would be a solution. I'm not sure your limitation covers all cases.
 * (2)the redirects still show up on the lists, in italics if one's preference is set to show redirects as italics--but perhaps the solution is just to ignore the redirects, if this is the only source for them.  DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * On new CSDs, I think we should continue from the archived WT:WikiProject Articles for creation/2020 5. I think there’s potential for A11 applying in draftspace, and for BLPPROD in DraftSpace.  For both, WT:CSD have failed to agree.  I think the way forward is to make many MfD nominations citing the proposed new CSD line.  That’s how we got CSD#U5 up. Making A10 extend to drafts, I think is low to zero priority, because “redirect” is a sufficient solution.  I don’t know what you mean by “show up in the lists”.  Limitation?  You mean G6 should not cover any page with a nontrivial history? Say what you mean at WT:CSD please. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In regard to continuing WT:WikiProject Articles for creation/2020 5: WT:WikiProject Articles for creation is an okay place for discussion if any proposed criterion would only apply to drafts bearing afc submission templates. If it is to apply to all pages in the draftspace, WT:Drafts would be okay. If userspace drafts would be included as well, then WT:CSD would be best. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 09:23, 8 January 2021 (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.