Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (Human Readable Version)

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 Moved to userspace something lame from CBW 21:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (Human Readable Version)

In 2008, an editor apparently decided to create this essay explaining the criteria for speedy deletion. He never finished, leaving an incomplete and out-of-date page. On top of that, the page is fundamentally redundant to the far superior essay at WP:CSDX, created in 2006, of which this editor may have been unaware when he created the page. WP:NS4 states "to make information easier to find, try to avoid creating new pages in the project namespace unnecessarily. If you want to add material, you might discover that the same thing already exists somewhere else." Therefore, pages such as this one are ill-advised and ought to be deleted. --A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to userspace - This can be considered an essay by User:ViperSnake151, and should be at his/her userspace. No need for deletion. ...but what do you think? ~BF izz 03:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Explanations. Inferior accidental content fork relevent to project space. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Indeed, but it's not exactly a plausible search term. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is for ViperSnake151 (talk · contribs), when he wants to work on it further. Perhaps he intended something different to WP:CSDX. Redirects are cheap. I don't think there is an advantage in cleaning up project space long winded redirects. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy for active editor. If he then wants to work on it or delete it, fine. Collect (talk) 11:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, no good reason to keep this in mainspace, but nothing wrong with having it around in userspace. Nyttend (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2010 (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.