Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cacol89.w/Range query tree

 __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 Range query tree. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Cacol89.w/Range query tree


Nominating on behalf of User:Godsy who has taken a good start draft and effectively deleted it without discussion by consigning it to userspace of a long gone user. If lack of sources is a good reason to move things out of mainspace there is a huge category of mainspace pages tagged as lacking any refs that should all be deleted asap. If this page is not suitable as a topic, we should completely delete it. Until moved, it was actively being improved as a new article. Legacypac (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - The rationale put forth by the nominator is inaccurate and not a reason for deletion. recently moved this page to Range query tree with the summary "stale draft found". WP:STALEDRAFT states "If suitable for mainspace, move to mainspace"; reliable sources are required to meet WP:V (one of the core content policies), this has no sources whatsoever, therefore the move was ill-judged. Furthermore,  WP:UP/RFC2016 (B4) found that If a draft is moved to the mainspace by a user other than its author, then found to be unsuitable for the mainspace for reasons which wouldn't apply in the userspace, it should be returned to the userspace (restoration to userspace). That aside,  Another user added CS-Trees, all other  improvement was done by me. —  Godsy (TALK CONT ) 22:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Range query (database); and then merge and redirect that to Range query (data structures). Fine slicing of technical subjects means too many pages for realistic maintenance.  I don't see why it all can't fit on the one page.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me as well. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 04:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I felt it was a valid topic and search term but fully expected it to be merged and redirected to an appropriate place when exposed to more editors as gets catagorized and wiklinked etc. Hate to see good content wasted in userspace.


 * Godsy misrepresents WP:V though. Inline citations are great but not required in mainspace unless the material is challenged or expected to be controversial. It's all in V. Legacypac (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Further reading suggests that page accurately details how the topic is not the same as potential merger topics. I'd want an expert to merge it. I'm restoring this to mainspace, with three quality academic references in the hopes someone with more expertise will improve it or merge it appropriately. If merged, the title is an excellent redirect. I'm WITHDRAWing my deletion nomination as the userspace page will now be a redirect. Legacypac (talk) 15:06, 31 May 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.