Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fabio Golombek

 __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. — xaosflux  Talk 15:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fabio Golombek


Unnecessary draft because Fabio Golombek exists.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   07:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect. A completely sufficient solution, see WP:ATD.  Accidental content forks are almost always fixed by converting one to a redirect.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is zero gained by additional redirects when there is no need for them. Category:Redirects to the main namespace does not need to be clogged up between cross-namespace redirects that are actually necessary to preserve the GFDL and other redirects created for, I'm not sure what, to keep around the edits of editor who didn't have anything to do with an article and hasn't been here in three years for personal curiosity? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Absurd. The category which "maintains a list of pages primarily for the sake of the list itself" would be better deleted itself.  It is hopelessly inaccurate, and even if not, "clogged up" issues are WP:PERFORMANCE issues, and obviously facile.  There is nothing undesirable about redirects to mainspace.
 * Every draft moved to mainspace should leave behind a redirect. The redirect serves purposes supporting editor's memories, computer bookmarks, etc.  There is nothing undesirable about redirects to mainspace.
 * One thing gained is avoiding the negative of an MfD for every redundant draft.  Accidental content forks are almost always fixed by converting one to a redirect.  Any editor should do that, no need for the fanfare of a community discussion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It wasn't moved to mainspace. That's different. This page was created in 2013 and sat around through AFC extensions until someone else entirely created the page in mainspace in 2015. If these were related, a history merge would be appropriate to get the 2013 versions added but these aren't. This tends to happen when there's so much crap floating around that no one can find or work on the marginally useful stuff because other people oppose deleting that kind of stuff for reasons that are baffling to most people. Take the category for CFD if it bothers you so much or else realize that the category exists for a limited purpose because redirects to mainspace are supposed to be for a limited purpose not just because it can be done for literally anything. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Fabio Golombek exists, This shows that the AfC decline was in error.  You want to delete all record of that error?


 * This sort of careless deletion is not the wiki way. There is no benefit in deleting, and there is harm in deleting.  So don't.


 * This page is not "crap". Even if it were, converting it to a redirect would be a neat packaging, and so it would not be "floating around".


 * The category is a near worthless but harmless tracking category of a superfluous template, but that doesn't mean it is worth the effort to be absolutely sure about that opinion and have it deleted.


 * I think you have a huge misconception about redirects to mainspace. WP:CNR was clearly written without anticipation of your enthusiasm to read without a wider perspective.  There is no problem with having redirects into mainspace.   --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no harm in deleting. There is nothing gained from redirecting, unless you ignore the other categories that exist and ignore point X and Y and so one, and there is no policy reason why we should redirect. You have yet to express one other than your "it's less admin work" argument. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is repetitive. It is like you have blinkers on.  Like you are selectively deaf.  The harm is in the overburdening of MfD with harmless things, aka busywork.  The good from redirecting is so that the author is given the message, quite usefully, and his bookmarks will still work, and also for any similarly minded drafter.  Policy reason for redirecting is in WP:ATD.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's already at MFD. Is your argument that you are voting redirect so that other people don't come to MFD because you've ensured that they can't get stuff deleted that they want deleted and thus in that sense you've "protecting" MFD from a burden? Otherwise, now that we're here, we should discuss what to do based on what should be done in this situation, not based on whether deleting things of a certain type would lead to more deletions of that type. It's not like you've obtained a consensus via the various RFCs to redirect these kinds of pages that you can point to. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Admittedly some of the first, but also, and necessarily, that a redirect is a good idea.
 * I guess, we could have an RfC on what to do with accidental content forks in draftspace:
 * (1) Speedy delete them; or
 * (2) Take them individually to MfD; or
 * (3) Redirect the redundant to draft to the viable mainspace title.
 * (3a) Replace with a soft redirecting template that explains that the topic appears to be already covered in mainspace, with advice on what to do if that is not actualy true, such is if a spinout is being attempted, or title disambiguation is needed
 * (4) Ignore them, leave them as they are, or (4a) blank
 * I would !vote for (3), for various reasons, possibly harping on at length, possibly (3a) an idea to considered, followed by (1) (weak oppose) and strongly opposing (2). (4) is what most people do.  (4a) probably confuses, making (3) or (3a) better.


 * Now that we are here? (and noticing that this is not draftspace we are talking about) OK, maybe the redirect is not really a good idea because drafts as subpages of WT:AfC is deprecated, all new drafting should be done in DraftSpace, so no new draft should ever be going to this location, so yes, delete now that we are here.  Maybe all subpages of WT:AfC should be deleted, but please lets not do it one by one.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Personally I see no actual point in redirecting ...., Anyway as the article exists there's no point keeping this around for the sake of it, If the creator wanted to do something with it then they wouldn't of abandoned it. – Davey 2010 Talk 11:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Now that you have seen a few of these, consider that there are tens of thousands more, and they will be eternally created. Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:Drafts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge/Redirect to Fabio Golombek. In this instance, it would be a harmless redirect that is WP:CHEAP. If the user who created the page ever comes along again to work on the submission, they will then be redirected to the main namespace article that already exists. Of note is that other users have performed edits to the submission, such as who added a G13 postpone template and, who added a G13 postpone template and a source. If these users were to revisit the page, they would also be redirected to the main namespace article. North America1000 23:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge When I postponed the G13,I was not aware of the mainspace article--I certainly should have checked, but we need some way to make that automatic at the time of review, just as it is at the time of moving to mainspace. But the way I would handle this to preserve the work done, is to see if there is not perhaps something that could be merged from he inadvertently created draft. And it seems there is: the early films of his mentioned in the 4th paragraph of the AfD have not been incorporated into the main article, and seem appropriate content.  DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm also for the notion of merging content. I have updated my !vote above from redirect to "Merge/Redirect". North America1000 00:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - DGG, at the time you postponed the draft, the mainspace article did not exist, so you were in no way negligent. It's too bad that the editor didn't notice the draft. I notice that there is now an improvement to the article creation screen which notifies an editor about drafts; this is a good reason for now moving all of the remaining old AfC drafts out of "Wikipedia talk" and into Draft space.  I usually prefer merging to preserve content, but in this case there is almost no information in the draft that's not already in the article.  The draft was created by a COI editor, and very similar text has been posted at http://showmethefkingmoney.tv/fabio-golombek/ (not sure which came first).  The draft has not been improved for well over six months, so could have been speedy deleted under db-g13 before this discussion started.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant to Fabio Golombek. Nothing substantial to be merged here and no benefit in keeping it, as per users Ricky81682 and DGG. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - If the author wants to merge something, they are welcome to do edit the mainspace. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2016 (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.