Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ledownin/Cigarette Smoking for Weight Loss

 __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 Cigarette smoking for weight loss. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Ledownin/Cigarette Smoking for Weight Loss


This userspace draft was abandoned over 9 years ago. Any similar draft with an AFC submission would be eligible for speedy deletion after 6 months. This page, however, has a Userspace draft template and so is exempt from G13. It seems to me that there is even less point in keeping an abandoned draft for 9+ years than for keeping an abandoned draft for more than 6 months, when the templates are essentially equivalent. We have to draw the line somewhere, and I suggest that this page has gone well past where most Wikipedians would draw it. RexxS (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Useless draft. The editor did create the Cigarette Smoking for Weight Loss article. Therefore, there is no purpose for keeping the draft. QuackGuru ( talk ) 21:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Cigarette smoking for weight loss. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect Article in question needs work. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect per the above. Deletion offers no benefits over this. Thryduulf (talk) 09:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Question What would be the point of a redirect? You are suggesting that a 9-year old abandoned draft should be redirected to the article that it later formed the basis of. Who exactly is going to (1) find the userspace draft; and (2) follow the redirect to the article? There are no meaningful incoming links, so redirection offers no benefits, meaningful or otherwise. What possible purpose can this page serve? --RexxS (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It will allow anyone to easily follow the history and avoids unnecessary link rot. What possible benefits can deletion bring? Thryduulf (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Who could possibly want to follow the history? The article now exists, so who would need the history of this draft? As there are no incoming links, there cannot possibly be link rot. Deletion would bring at least the same benefits that G13 brings. Keeping ancient drafts of articles that were created years ago is not part of the remit of an encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Whatlinkshere shows only links from current revisions of pages on the English Wikipedia. There is a lot more of the internet than this. If someone is looking through how the article developed then they may well be interested in how the draft developed. There are many reasons why someone may want to do this (not that it matters why someone might want to do it, the fact that they might is sufficient). G13 deletes drafts that never became articles, WP:RDRAFT notes that there is consensus that redirects from drafts that did become articles should be retained. If we were a paper encyclopaedia with tight space restrictions then yes, deleting old drafts would bring benefits - but we aren't. If space were a constraint we wouldn't keep every old revision of pages, just a list of authors for attribution purposes. Thryduulf (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Readers don't go searching for how a draft was developed. 'Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia' is not applicable to this situation. 'Redirects from drafts moved to mainspace' is also not applicable to this situation. There was no redirect as a result of a page move. You voted 'redirect' but there is no real benefit for redirecting it. See this stale draft. Should we redirect it or delete it? QuackGuru ( talk ) 23:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a very general statement about readers. I'm a reader as well as an editor and I occasionally do, there are researchers who do investigate the history of how Wikipedia (articles) developed (and there are only likely to be more in the future), but whether they do or don't is not really the point - the issue is that with a redirect they can if they want, but if this is deleted they can't and absolutely no benefit arises from preventing it. As for the Robert Camuto draft, I have redirected it - we don't need a duplicate article but there is no benefit to deletion. If the user does come back then they can easily see what has happened to their work and will be taken to the article they can improve if they wish. If they don't though then nobody has lost anything. Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * According to which policy is your arguments based on? There is a benefit from deletion. Expunging the remnants from Wikipedia could prevent others from wasting time in the future. Editors could try to delete a redirect. QuackGuru ( talk ) 06:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's far more likely that the redirect will avoid anybody wasting time duplicating an existing article, avoid them wasting time hunting for where their draft went or simply departing Wikipedia all together when they can't find what we did with their work than it is for someone to spend time deleting the redirect. If they do nominate the redirect for deletion though it will gather a few recommendations to be kept (usually per WP:RDRAFT, WP:CHEAP and/or the principle that redirects out of userspace are never deleted unless (a) they're harmful somehow, and/or (b) the user whose userspace it is requests it) and then kept, as this is what has happened routinely for years when redirects from drafts to articles are nominated. Indeed it's rather ironic that you're expending so much effort trying to get this deleted. It all boils down to the redirect might help someone and definitely wont harm anything whereas deletion definitely wont help anyone and might hinder them. Thryduulf (talk) 08:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It takes too much time to clean up so many stale drafts. Another stale draft was left behind by an article creator. Should this be nominated for deletion? It looks like Wikipedia is being used as a host service for stale drafts. There are people who create one article and then leave Wikipedia for decades. They leave behind a stale draft (as well as MEDRS violations) and no bot is redirecting or tagging all the stale drafts. QuackGuru ( talk ) 15:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There can be a two step process. Blank and then delete. I did the first step. QuackGuru ( talk ) 02:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And I've restored it so as not to accidentally prejudice this discussion. Blanking something solely to make it easier to get it deleted is very much acting in bad faith. Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 24 July 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.