Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Polar Air Cargo Flight 71

 __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: Delete, note there was already a former discussion regarding merging this material to an article, concluding that there was nothing worth merging. — xaosflux  Talk 16:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Polar Air Cargo Flight 71


Abandoned Draft (not edited for almost six years, except to move a comma and rename from User subpage to Draft) that contains information peripheral to the main topic (Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907) already mentioned in said article anyway. YSSYguy (talk) 06:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907, the edits may be wanted for some reference or memory aid reason, and there is no reason to delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If this had been moved to mainspace and was at AfD I am certain that the result would be "delete". The reason for a redirect is to help visitors to find something when they search for something else; the connection between the flight number for the Polar Air aircraft and the mid-air collision itself is so tenuous as to not be a search term anyone will actually use, as anybody who remembers the Polar Air flight number would be very familiar with the event anyway and use a different search term. I cannot see why the edit history of an abandoned draft would be a useful aide-memoire either. YSSYguy (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not at AfD; draft space isn't for maintaining like mainspace.
 * Redirect has more uses than the one you mentions, and the one you mention is not even a top reason. Another reason is WP:ATD, to avoid blugeoning processes unnecessarily. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Redirect is not necessary. Editors constantly copy pages from mainspace around for testing purpose and if not used, deletion makes more sense than adding all those into cross namespace redirects. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "Necessity" is not the reason for the redirect. Deletion makes less sense as it unnecessarily adds to the administrative burden.  Your obfuscation with allusions to copying is inappropriate.  If you mean to say that this is content copied from elsewhere with inadequate attribution, then say so more clearly.  Redirects are cheap, including Draft to mainspace redirects, and there is nothing wrong with them.  No objection to a soft redirect.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As someone who closes these discussions regularly, closing this a redirect, putting in the proper template here and adding a old MFD notice on the back and watchlisting the page in case something happens in the future takes a lot more admin work than just closing as delete and deleting the page and moving on. Either way, "too much work for admins" has never been considered a valid rationale for anything. Why not argue at AFD that every page should be kept because you have decided which things people should volunteer to do? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Because mainspace is the project-proper. Mainspace needs to be maintained with some level of quality.  Random redirects in mainspace cause problems for readers.  However, your recent enthusiasm to do similar maintenance on draftspace and userspace consumes other people's time and does nothing for the project-proper.  And then, note that you do collateral damage by insulting editors.
 * When someone wants to volunteer their time, it is their right to decide how to volunteer. But when their choices creates a workload for others, it crosses the line into disruption.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * So none of these is actually about "saving admin time", is it? I'd say voting to keep and redirect pages for illogical reasons like "saves admin resources" is plenty disruptive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The reasons aren't illogical. Some things discussed with you are tangential, and may seem illogical as in unconnected to the !vote, but I stand by the !vote, " the edits may be wanted for some reference or memory aid reason, and there is no reason to delete."  Your !vote implies an assume presumption to delete unless there is a reason to delete.  Maybe in mainspace, weaker maybe for project space, categories, templates etc, but not draftspace or userspace.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:19, 22 June 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.