Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Track Palin


 * 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 debate was Userfy - A talk page of a redirect is really a speedy G8 as the article doesn't page doesn't exist. Userfying to User:903M/Track Palin and deleting the cross namespace redirect and replacing with a redirect to Talk:Sarah Palin Doug.(talk • contribs) 02:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Track Palin
The article Track Palin was, logically, created as a redirect to Sarah Palin - he hasn't done anything notable enough for a WP article yet, but is a viable search term. One or more users have started a stub article on TP on the talk page of the redirect - a highly inappropriate place, IMO. I'd like to see this userfied to a subpage of one of the creators of this (talk)article. Grutness...wha?  01:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The article page is page protected even though there has been no edit warring or vandalism which prevents an article from being written. Article pages always have talk pages.  It is very anti-Wikipedia to refuse to have a talk page in an article.  This talk page introduces ideas that might be used for an article.  Others may help improve it up to the point that it might appear in the article space.


 * We also have to be aware that the Palin family is very controversial. Some people want it because they want more information available on the family.  Some people are mad that the Palin family is getting so much press coverage which so they want to stamp out all traces of it.  This is why the Sarah Palin article has so many editors putting things in and removing things.  Unfortunately, this behaviour is spreading to Track Palin.


 * My intent is just to discuss possible wording of a proposed article (in the talk page because there's nowhere else to put it). I am not a forceful proponent of moving it to article space, at least not now.  I might have been seconds after writing it but not now.


 * A final warning: It seems very dangerous to me to try to eliminate comments on the talk page just because one opposes the comment. People should just add comments to how to improve it or why a certain sentence is POV. 903M (talk) 02:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Be bold and speedy userfy - Article pages may have talk pages, but a redirect is not an article. Redirect talk pages are for discussing the redirect itself. The possible wording of a proposed article can be discussed in user space. Consensus to move a user space article into article space then can be obtained from deletion review. The present Talk:Track Palin has become a talk page for an article whose page does not exist. Be bold and speedy userfy. -- Suntag  ☼  03:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That would lead to article ownership and make it harder for others to make suggestions. I am no fan of Track but just saw some articles about him.  If a redirect is not an article, then move the draft into article space, allow a short time for improvement, then see if it should be deleted.  That is the fair and honest way to do things.  Putting it in my user page not only inhibits improvement but makes me look like a Track fan, which I am not. 903M (talk) 05:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "fair ... way to do things" - Yea, I kinda agree. Deletion review is only for reviewing deletions and since there has been no deletion, either speedy or regular, there's nothing there to review. The page is protected so you can't start something that can be deleted, so there's nothing there to review at deletion review. At present, there is no way to get a delete or keep consensus on a Track Palin. This MfD discussion cannot result in the talk page being moved into the article page. Have the article draft moved to your user space and then post a request a deletion review asking that it be moved to Track Palin. Point out the catch 22 in that there has been no article deletion request and you are not able to post the writing to get one, so you are unable to use any of the deletion and review processes set up for article deletion request. -- Suntag  ☼  00:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Userfy and delete, standard practice, no need for anything different here. – ukexpat (talk) 03:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Userfy the draft, the comments should probably stay or be moved to a userfied version's talk page. Talk pages are not for draft articles, that's what userspace is for.  User:903M's objections based on "article ownership" are, well, silly.  Anyone can work on a draft in anyone's userspace,and sandboxes in your userspace have no bearing on your perceived "fandom" or "hate" of the subject (I've had a couple of drafts on subjects that I'm pretty opposed to) --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep These are all valid to eventually fork out later, especially if the Republicans win the election when inevitable (lets be honest here) press arrives. Revisit this in mid-November, and skip the CRYSTALBALL commentary in favor of COMMONSENSE :). rootology ( C )( T ) 06:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep somewhere else. Not appropriate for a talkpage of a redirect, better to be userfied at this point.   Keeper    76  19:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Userfy. Palin-related articles have attracted a lot of vandalism and WP:BLP violations. Since it may be difficult to ensure that a new Palin-related article stays  neutral in the present editing climate, it is safer if someone who is interested in the topic of Track Palin goes ahead and creates a draft of this proposed article in their user space.  Once a proper article is written, Deletion review could be used to approve moving it to article space.  If anyone thinks such a process is not kosher, the approval discussion could be held at WP:AN instead. EdJohnston (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Vandalism and WP:BLP can be managed with semi-protection. Difficulty in keeping an article neutral is not a reason to kill it.  Having a draft in a user page is no protection to keeping an article free of vandalism.  Putting an article in a user page is an excellent way to hide it.  For example, I have not checked any of the above editors' user pages. Whose user page should it go to?  Jimbo Wales?  I'm no Track Palin fan so I prefer that it be on someone else's user page.  If people are so bent on killing it, move it to the article page and allow it to improve for 7 days then AFD it. 903M (talk) 05:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Part of the concern here is that we will be wasting editor time and admin time watching for BLP on an article that probably won't ever meet the notability standards anyway. If someone really has faith in this as a possible article, let them volunteer to develop it and find sources. It should go to the user space of whoever is willing to do the work. EdJohnston (talk) 05:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The fair thing would be to let it be improved by others. If someone is so bent on killing it, just unpage protect the article, move the talk page comments to the article page, and file an AFD for deletion. 903M (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * userfy delete seems open and shut. creat redirect and edit protect Fr33kman talk APW 23:27, 15 September 2008 (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.