Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tealwisp/Scroogle: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:45, 13 April 2016

so why not redirect? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - redirecting to mainspace is completely pointless .......... If it was an article then great however it's someone subpage..... better off deleted. –Davey2010^Talk 03:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was a good and proper draft, even suitable for mainspace (if it was a WP:UP#COPIES I haven't checked). The author was a productive Wikipedian. Deletion carries the implication that the user needs his userspace managed by others, which is rude, insulting and alienating for him to discover when he returns. Deleted, and he has to beg for a WP:REFUND merely to review his old work. There is no actual reason to delete. These are reasons not to delete.
It could be blanked with reference to Privacy_concerns_regarding_Google#Scroogle, or converted to a redirect to Privacy_concerns_regarding_Google#Scroogle. I have little preference for one over the other. Both inform the author, on his return, where the current state of coverage of this topic is to be found. This is more than sufficient reason for a redirect. Most userspace drafts are turned into userspace -> mainspace redirects when the user WP:MOVEs them.
What are the alleged advantages of deletion of this page? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Sorry I was supposed to have removed most of that but ended up falling asleep, Anyway seeing as they were a long time editor it does seem dickish to outright delete it so I agree redirecting is the best choice (or some of it could be merged ?...), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 13:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. You mean consider re-expanding the section? Beware other opinions seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scroogle (3rd nomination), and earlier, there is a bit of a history. Quick just redirect before anyone else notices. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is fine given the user was active. Legacypac (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 ::* - Sorry I was supposed to have removed most of that but ended up falling asleep, Anyway seeing as they were a long time editor it does seem dickish to outright delete it so I agree '''redirect'''ing is the best choice (or some of it could be merged ?...), Thanks, –[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color: blue;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color: orange;">'''2010'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color: navy;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 13:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 :::* No worries.  You mean consider re-expanding the section?  Beware other opinions seen at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scroogle (3rd nomination)]], and earlier, there is a bit of a history.  Quick just redirect before anyone else notices.  --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 13:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
+*Redirect is fine given the user was active. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 14:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)