Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jonfrmr/Ernest Element

 __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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 02:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Jonfrmr/Ernest Element


We already have an article on Ernest Element, which is better than this draft. This draft was for some reason tagged for AFC review because it was touched by a bot. Author hasn't edited in three years. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Abandoned dup. — CoolSkittle  (talk) 03:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - It seems that the bot, User:Cydebot, touched approximately 20 drafts in user space that had been abandoned for years. The editing for some reason submitted the pages for review and caused the bot to be their submitter, and they all went to AFC.  I moved them to draft space and then either declined or rejected them, and they will now die of old age on 14 July 2019.  However, this one could not be moved to draft space because there is already a redirect in draft space to the article, and redirects from draft space to article space are kept.  So this one is a duplicate.  The rest of them will go G13 on 14 July 2019.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect, do not delete. Userspace duplicates, absent some good reason to delete, should never be deleted by redirected to the superior current page, whether in article space, draftspace, or another’s userspace.  Hiding the user’s edit history from them is needlessly unwelcoming to their return. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Draft:Ernest Element is redirected to the article. Please show a policy or guideline that either supports or opposes redirecting these duplicates.  If the guidelines are silent, then we don't need an extra redirect.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:ATD. WP:PRESERVE. The absecence of a reason to delete in either WP:UP or WP:NOT.  Also read Redirects are cheap and busywork.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:42, 16 January 2019 (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.