Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Top Gear (2016 TV series)

 __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. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Top Gear (2016 TV series)


Draft has no chance of becoming an article. There is no 2016 TV program called Top Gear. There only is a series 23 of the program that started in 2002. No point in wasting more of our time on this. Tvx1 15:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Nom is correct. This draft was created on the assumption that series 23 of Top Gear was going to be a whole new show. It's not so this draft serves no purpose. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Top Gear (series 23) Top Gear (2016 TV series) (it is not for mfd to decide the redirect target, so redirect to the mainspace redirect). 12:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC) Topic is already an article.  Redirection is appropriate for accidental content forks because if one person has made the mistake already, so could others.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We're talking about a draft article here, not an article in article space so a cross-namespace redirect is not appropriate. In any case, Top Gear (2016 TV series) already exists and is a redirect to Top Gear (2002 TV series), which is appropriate. Redirecting to Top Gear (series 23) would not be appropriate, as this draft is about an entire show, not just one series ("season" in US terminology). Assuming Top Gear is not cancelled due to low ratings, Top Gear (series 24), Top Gear (series 25), and so on, would become just as much a part of "Top Gear (2016 TV series)" as is Top Gear (series 23). -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree that a redirect is not appropriate (or even useful) here. I can't imagine someone typing "Draft:Top Gear (2016 TV series)" into the search box. Tvx1 20:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you imagine someone attempting to draft "Top Gear (2016 TV series)"? It has happened already. Deletion of mistakes dooms for them to be repeated. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:SALT.Tvx1 01:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, salting the draft page is possible but, as I said, redirecting the page to the article for a single series of the programme is not appropriate anyway. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 08:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Why not? What better to do for someone who thinks there is a missing topic to be drafted? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As I've already pointed out, this draft is about the entire program, not a single season of it. If they are created, Top Gear (series 24), Top Gear (series 25), and so on, would become just as much a part of "Top Gear (2016 TV series)" as is Top Gear (series 23), and you can't redirect to more than one article. If it was to be redirected, then redirecting to Top Gear (2002 TV series) would be more appropriate. A better way to stop the article being recreated by "someone who thinks there is a missing topic to be drafted", would be to salt the page. The already existing Top Gear (2016 TV series) could be fully protected to prevent it being recreated in article space. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The draft is based on understandable confusion. I think it arose from confusion that the 2016 series, aka series 23, would be considered the first year of a new series.  In any case, if the mainspace redirect makes sense, so does a redirect from here.  The target is apparently debatable, so redirect to the redirect, to Top Gear (2016 TV series).  Deletion is not the answer to drafting mistakes that could recur.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think the confusion was reasonable. It was based on the belief that because there were new hosts, the series would be a completely new program, and there was never anything that stated that. All of the advertising and news articles pointed to it simply being a continuation of the existing program. That said, redirecting this to a redirect results in a double redirect. Such redirects are unwanted, and a bot will just redirect it to Top Gear (2002 TV series) anyway. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I was confused for a period. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - As I said on the talkpage it would make more sense for a new article however there's dividing opinions on it and at the moment there's no consensus to split the article so as there's no consensus (and unlikely to ever be) it makes more sense to just delete it, – Davey 2010 Talk 02:01, 13 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.