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 Push and Shove (song) with troutslaps to Ricky81682 and SmokeyJoe for having a philosophical duel here. ( non-admin closure) Hasteur ( talk) 19:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Draft:Push and Shove (song) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Two year old non-AFC draft that was already covered by Push and Shove (song) when it was already created in 2012. Seems unnecessary to have another draft. Ricky81682 ( talk) 23:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC) reply

• Ignore and let G13 take its course, or redirect, or contribute ideas for agreeable CSD#D* criteria. It is less unnecessary than this MfD nomination. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC) reply

There can't be a G13 since it's a non-AFC draft. There is no current consensus for CSD#D criteria so can we deal with the pages as they are now? If that passes, then I'm on board with you. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 01:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Again, to reiterate, there is no G13 for non-AFC drafts so if left alone, it'll remain in draftspace until it's taken to MFD again (which could as soon as tomorrow or six months from now or in a decade). -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 23:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Obviously, the process problem should be fixed. Either modify G13 to include all draftspace drafts, or apply the AfC template. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC) reply

That's great and all but your !vote is to ignore it until and unless someone comes up with a G13-type thing for draftspace? Is there a discussion about a CSD#D criteria I haven't seen? -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 21:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete as redundant since we're already here, and both of you, please calm down. Ricky81682, SmokeyJoe's right that a redirect would have immediately fixed this, and wouldn't have required extra effort from anyone else (namely me, and SmokeyJoe, and NA1K, and anybody who comments here after me, and whoever ends up closing this). SmokeyJoe, Ricky81682's right that no speedy deletion criterion that covers this draft, and those that would come closest have exemptions specifically carved out for this sort of page.
  Yes, new speedy criteria would be ideal and I think they're warranted, but all the proposals along these lines have gone down in flames because they were poorly framed, poorly championed, or both. If you're both serious about making a new criterion happen, I'd suggest working on it together somewhere other than WT:CSD. That page is still dominated by the last couple failed tries, and there's little hope for a new proposal at this time unless it's already in a more-or-less final form, with probable opposing arguments anticipated and answered. (The most obvious one: why is deletion necessary, instead of blanking or redirecting?) — Cryptic 09:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Yes Cryptic. A perfect place for conversation is Wikipedia talk:Managing drafts, but even that should wait until Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring is closed, which may be any day soon. There is no great rush, old harmless pages won't harm anything for a little longer. In the meantime, I ask Ricky and others to stop cramming these things into MfD, it is obviously a net negative contribution. I predict, however, that there will never be a CSD criterion for redundant drafting because deletion is an administrative overhead without need, there being no harm and some benefit to conversion to a redirect. DraftSpace should not be a source of administrative overload. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete What needs to be ignored is SmokeyJoe's "vote", not the draft. 103.6.159.91 ( talk) 10:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC) reply

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.