Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Thomas L. Short
- 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. I don't see any reasons to keep that overcome the usual practice of deleting talk pages of deleted articles. It was argued that the comment might be helpful if anyone tries to recreate the article, but it's been almost 10 years without any attempt at recreation. If refunded, the talk page will come back as well. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Thomas L. Short[edit]
No point to keeping around this talkpage of a long-deleted article. It isn't general practice to keep around article talkpages when articles are deleted, even via PROD, and I don't see a convincing case to do something different here. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete I also fail to see a reason for keeping this around. The only contents on the page are basically a G7 rationale from the article's creator. If someone does ever decide that they want to WP:REFUND the page in the future the deletion log already points to the talk page, which the undeleting admin will be able to see. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, I think it's helpful for anyone wanting to create the article, to dissuade them from doing so. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 23:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Notifying Explicit, who put the G8-exempt tag on. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 23:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- This was nearly ten years ago, but it seems that I tagged it as such based on the PROD's deletion summary, which states, "verifiability, notability, and see talk page". The talk page contains the somewhat lengthy reason why the article was nominated for deletion in the first place. Keeping the talk page brings no harm, but deleting it could. ✗plicit 03:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete I fail to see how keeping an orphaned talk page from nearly a decade ago is remotely useful. Should’ve just been deleted with the parent article. A deletion notice is warning enough. Dronebogus (talk) 03:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Move to Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Thomas L. Short. There’s an argument for keeping, no harm in putting it here. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Note that Thomas L. Short was only WP:PRODded, and it might be REFUNDed at any time on anyone’s request. If sent to AfD, the talk page comment should be noted in the AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Moving without redirect or keeping the redirect? I think the page more helpful in the talk namespace, but if a redirect is kept it's fine I guess. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 03:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- I’d move without the trailing redirect. If following the authors contributions, you’ll find it at the new page. If jumping straight to the talk page, you’ll find it in the deletion log.
- The note says the deleted sources are not reliable, and wrong. No one is likely to re-create with those sources. If someone re-creates with better sources, the note can be ignored.
- In total, it’s not very important. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: I do not see why a single comment on a decade-old talk page should be exempt from the usual treatment of orphaned talk pages. The article has only been deleted once. If a real problem with people recreating it emerges, it should be salted. ―Susmuffin Talk 09:00, 25 November 2021 (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.