* Pppery * it has begun... 18:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Pointless redirect from a supposed draft article. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 13:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Crowsus (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - totally pointless for inclusion and drafts are rarely or not at all linked on any articles on Wikipedia. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep (and delete the extra text): Actually, Swan, drafts do redirect to the articles once they get approved, that's a regular part of the process. In this case, it was out of process, because the draft was created in 2019 for an article that exists since 2006. However, having a "draft:article" redirecting to "article" is commonplace by now across the encyclopedia, so there's hardly a point in deleting this. Cambalachero (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:SRE, this is the standard way of dealing with these. There is no benefit to deleting, but there is benefit in avoiding RFD discussions for them. Extra text should be deleted and then the page should be tagged with Template:R from Draft. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:5450:3A3:46CC:17EC (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per Cambalachero's explanation. This was never a viable draft, so it should have been deleted instead of redirected. -- Tavix (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- :Hang on, Cambalachero's explanation indicates this should be kept from that user's view, so it looks like both arguments are presented above. The removal of the extra text should not be a problem either way. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- ::I'm aware. Cambalachero's explanation is a good summary of why it should be deleted. Cambalachero then pivots a bit and says there's hardy a point in deleting it, which is agreeable, but I think while we're here we might as well delete it—there's also hardly a point in keeping it. -- Tavix (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. This is not an WP:RDRAFT. The draft was created 13 years after the fact (in 2019) and never should have existed. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep ... ish. Someone created a draft under this redirect prior to it being nominated. If need be, disable the redirect and then send this to WP:MFD. Steel1943 (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
::What would be the desire to send this to WP:MFD? There is clearly not any salvageable material in the draft so there's nothing to discuss on that front. If the redirect is disabled, it would become eligible for WP:G13 deletion six months later. (Although, I don't see the point in waiting that long given that it's already been nominated for deletion). -- Tavix (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- The 2023 IP edit should just have been reverted. But now that we're at RfD, Delete per Tavix. What I understand from SRE is it is applicable at MfD. Any draft may be boldly redirected to a corresponding article, and this avoids an MfD, such as this draft under discussion, hence was not a case of SRE. Jay 💬 17:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
:
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete for the reason given by Tavix. --Bsherr (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep This is all pretty pointless. The reasoning for keeping RDRAFTS isn't magically entirely invalidated by the fact that the redirect was created later and had no links. And yes, this comment is also pointless. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
:: RDRAFTs are defined as {{tq|redirects that are a result of page moves from the draft namespace to the main namespace}}. This redirect was not the result of a page move, so this is not an RDRAFT. -- Tavix (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
:::I am not saying that this is an RDRAFT. I'm saying that the reasoning behind keeping them applies to this redirect as well. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
::::Thanks for clarifying. For what it's worth, RDRAFT redirects should be retained because they show where drafts have been published. That does not apply here because the underlying draft was never moved to mainspace and was never viable, magically or otherwise. That said, I do appreciate that other rationales that can apply here came up during that discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::There were several other reasons, including:
:::::# Prevent accidental re-drafting of published articles
:::::#* including by showing the draft redirect title in search results for skins that aren't Vector 2022
:::::#* including by blocking the article creation wizard due to having an existing page
:::::# Redirects being cheap and such redirects being not harmful
:::::{{pb}}I don't see any benefit at all for this redirect being deleted. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep I've seen a fair number of drafts create for long existing articles and redirects like this are harmless. If having a redirect from the draft name to the article reduces that at all and gets the editors to improve the article, it'd be a net positive. Skynxnex (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
:The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).