Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Kok Heng Leun

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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Kok Heng Leun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 01:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kok Heng Leun has been accepted into article space. No need for this draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Just redirect. No need for this step. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No one's going to search "Draft:Draft:Kok Heng Leun" so it's a pointless redirect, I know redirects are cheap but IMHO this is would be a useless redirect. –Davey2010^Talk 01:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• History merge would correct the copy-paste error. "Redirect" would smooth over the copy-paste error acceptably. There is no good reason to clear the title in draft space. Should anyone go there, they should be redirected to the current version. Should no one go there, there is zero issue. Please don't bring harmless accidental content forks with no reason for deletion to MfD, just redirect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It's still a pointless redirect and it benefits no one, It doesn't benefit you, or I or the readers, Consensus has always been to delete these and I see nothing different here, No objections to history merging if really desired tho, –Davey2010^Talk 02:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Consensus has always been to delete these"? Really? Since when, certainly not before creation of DraftSpace. You think that WP:MOVE is outdated, because it doesn't instruct the deletion of the residual redirect? I don't often frequent WP:RfD. Are you asserting that RfD is routinely deleting DraftSpace to MainSpace redirects, such as are necessarily generated everytime an adminstrator is not involved. No, I think you are quite wrong, and that redirects from drafting locations to mainspace are perfectly acceptable, and that seeking their deletion is busywork, counterproductive in that it requires work with no benefit. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:26, 11 October 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.