Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Jonathan Rosand Draft

 __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: redirect to Jonathan Rosand. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Jonathan Rosand Draft


Mal-named draft of an article already in mainspace, Jonathan Rosand.  Onel 5969  TT me 23:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - no a plausible redirect. -- Whpq (talk) 03:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. not a practical redirect.  DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Whpq and DGG, you appear to be both giving keen jerk nonsense.
 * Firstly, User:onel5969 error pinging first timeSmokeyJoe (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC) has provided misleading nomination. What does "already" mean?  Already now, or already them.  "Already now" is obviously superfluous, "already then" is to be implied, and therefore the nomination statement was wrong.  When the draft was written there was not already an article in mainspace.
 * Whpq, not "plausible" I struggle to guess why you wold say this.  It matches the article title.  I guess you mean the "Draft" in the title is not plausible?  That is a style question, and the evidence at hand is that the author used this style.  You could be arguing it would be preferable to move without redirect to Draft:Jonathan Rosand?  No, one reason to keep draft residual redirects is to not break the author's links and redirects.
 * The author is aware there is a main space article as they have edited that article. A redirect in this case is pointless. -- Whpq (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It is also harmless, harmless in an unimportant namespace. It would be better to educate the user, explain to him that he may db-g7 it.  You may also like to do the same for a hundred thousand other draftspace redirects, until you appreciate the harm of busywork.  This redirect "may as well be deleted now that we are here", but it should not have been brought here.  All such cases should be simply redirected.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * DGG, not practical? Redirects are cheap.  Redirects work.  What is not practical?
 * Convert to a redirect, replicating what would have happened if the author had not copy-pasted, but WP:Moved. Draftspace redirects should be retained for the benefit of the author, and for the benefit of any later contributor should might arrive with the same idea.  There is no cost to keeping the redirect, and some cost to deleting it.  Further, redundant drafts, copy-paste error remnants, and accidental content forks, should be speedy redirected on discovery, not brought to MfD.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking at it again, it's the earliest version. It should simply be redirected to the article talk p. as is standard practice  DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 21 March 2017 (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.