Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:LeaveDogLights/Hotel Carolina

 __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 to Redirect both to their respective articles. The single userspace edit for Hotel Carolina is practically the same edit that created the article, with an extra paragraph that originally caused the article to be CSDed. The Voodoo Jets userspace has no valuable history to merge. Redirects are for the user's benefit as mentioned below. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

User:LeaveDogLights/Hotel Carolina

 * User:LeaveDogLights/TheVoodooJets – added by Cunard (talk) on 22:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC).

WP:STALEDRAFT - draft for Hotel Carolina, single edit in September 2010. User has gone on to edit the proper article itself so I do not see a need for this anymore. Green Giant (talk) 02:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- Klein zach  07:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Hotel Carolina. Not a staledraft, but an actual draft version of the current mainspapce article.  Just create the redirect that would have been automatically created had've the user done the normal thing and wp:moved the draft to mainspace.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't redirect across namespaces, as I recall. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 17:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. We don't redirect from mainsace to userspace certainly, from redirects from userspace to mainspace are not a problem.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete since we don't redirect out of userspace and this clearly meets WP:STALEDRAFT. I get the feeling that SmokeyJoe is blatantly turning a blind eye to the established policies and precedents at MFD and is !voting the opposing opinion just to stir the pot. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Seeing as Cunard doesn't like my use of cn to focus on another's point of assertion, I should ask explicitly. TenPoundHammer, on what basis do you say "we don't redirect out of userspace" (without qualification)?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at all. It is normal practice to make a userspace draft, and to later move it to mainspace.  This leaves a userspace to mainspace redirect behind.  Since when has that been a problem?  This is not a stale draft because it is an actual draft version of a live article.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Trying to get my head round this one . .." SmokeyJoe: What is the point of what you are suggesting? Isn't a redirect for navigation? Why would you want to have a redirect from a user page to mainspace? -- Klein zach  23:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Adding to that... if it's indeed a userspace draft, there should be no links pointing to it. Any page where the draft is under discussion can be annotated with the article name, and other links can be pointed to the article. There is no good reason for a redirect. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 01:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Klein, the point is only for the benefit of User:LeaveDogLights. He may look for it, and may be interest in his own history of edits.  In general, a user's userspace stuff is only there for that user's uses.
 * Ultraexactzz, I don't get what you are saying. There will be no links pointing to it, except for this MfD page.  Its not really a draft, better to call it an early version.  The purpose of redirecting is to leave the bare minimum for the user to manage himself.  Hhe may choose to retain for his records, or U1/G7 it.  I am agreeing that the page should not remain live.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Having re-read WP:REDIRECT, I don't see anything that would specifically prohibit such a redirect. But, again, if this redirect is only for the editor in question - why not put a link to the article on his/her userpage? Seems like that would be a much simpler option. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 12:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, oppose redirect WP:UP states: "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." Because this page violates WP:UP and WP:NOTWEBHOST, it should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete User:LeaveDogLights/TheVoodooJets as well. I oppose a redirect as unnecessary. The content is already in the articles. Cunard (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Cunard, this page is not a copy (as per WP:UP#COPIES), but is an unattributed actual version of the current article. WP:NOTWEBHOST does not apply because the content relates to project purposes.


 * While a redirect, or history merge, or other postscript attribution method, is unnecessary (the author list would be unaffected), redirecting this page would have been the simplest and easiest thing to do. It would not require an MfD discussion.  On finding the page, the editor can fix it, for good, in seconds.


 * The beauty of converting a remnant of a copy-paste move to a redirect is that it produces a similar result as if the editor had done the proper thing at the time, which is to wp:move the userspace draft to mainspace (although the history is now divided). Whether the userspace redirect is of any use is then a question for the user.  Some users like to keep records of all their work.  Others like to keep their workspace clean.  There are no server, or performance differences either way.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * While I still oppose redirects, a history merge is reasonable. See my revised position below. Cunard (talk) 04:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Similarly, User:LeaveDogLights/TheVoodooJets is a draft version, not a copy, and should best be redirected to The Voodoo Jets, although if you want to involve an administrator, better to call for a trivial "history merge" than "delete". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * History merge User:LeaveDogLights/Hotel Carolina and Hotel Carolina History merge User:LeaveDogLights/TheVoodooJets and The Voodoo Jets as a reasonable compromise. A history merge will preserve the evolution of the articles and allow the creator,, to be able to review his initial draft versions of the articles. Cunard (talk) 04:19, 12 April 2011 (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.