Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:UK charity salaries of CEOs

 __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 UK charity salaries of CEOs. Redirect to main where it can live or die in accordance with the AfD results. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft:UK charity salaries of CEOs


Draft was cut and paste to a mainspace article on October 12, rather than being moved into article status. No need to keep draft.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect. There are several reasons for a draft --> mainspace redirect, you are way too quick to assert none.  You may disagree with them all, but they exist.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A reason to keep the draft is that the article UK charity salaries of CEOs is still un-reviewed, and as a reviewer my inclination is to seek its deletion. It is inappropriate to seek deletion of a draft prior to deletion of the article whose existence is put forward as a reason for deletion of the draft.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Speaking to the author,, it is much preferred for you to WP:MOVE your advanced draft than to do a WP:Copy-paste. Fixing your copy-paste error requires a WP:History merge.  Alternatively, as you are the sole author of your draft, you may db-g7 it.  However, why throw away your edit history.  Far better to WP:Move pages than to copy-paste content onto a new page.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have PRODded the article. It is proseless, it is pure data, it is fine per WP:V, but completely fails WP:NOR.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have de-prodded the article, since the rationale for prodding (WP:NOR) does not seem to apply: the information is all public and cited. SmokeyJoe is correct, when I looked at the article, I should have reviewed it. My bad. But not that there is an existing article in mainspace, no reason for the draft to exist.  Onel 5969  TT me 01:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You think it is OK? OK.  It does have eight incoming links from other articles.  I guess a lede could be written after reading the context of the links.  I would keep the draft history as a redirect.  I would never call you bad for not reviewing something.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right about the lead... but many list articles forego that (although they shouldn't, and I don't think OSE would be a valid argument for that type of rationale anyway). But I think it's sourced well enough to overcome the NOR issue. Will go back and add a lead tag. Take care.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have insufficient knowledge on policy on Drafts to have a view here, but in reviewing I felt (similarly as User:SmokeyJoe), the resultant article does not meet the standards for inclusion. Since a PROD had been removed, I started Articles for deletion/UK charity salaries of CEOs. I think compensation and more broadly expenses of charities are an important issue, but one needing investigative journalism rather than a wikipedia article based on primary sources. This is with respect to the author(s) for the considerable research and formatting effort that must have gone into this. Martinp (talk) 12:30, 2 November 2017 (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.