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 Ashutosh Kotwal. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ashutosh Kotwal Bio/Intro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article now exists at Ashutosh Kotwal, and the article is so much better than this version, as this version is Kotwal's official autobiography version (see WP:TEAHOUSE#Help understanding Neutral point of view) Joseph2302 (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Presumably should be redirected. The nomination makes no case for deletion. NB. Drafts moved to mainspace properly leave redirects behind. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ashutosh Kotwal. 103.6.159.92 (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if nothing is being merged, there is no need for attribution, and therefore no need for a redirect cluttering up the what links here page. Legacypac (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a bad, counterproductive idea, to "clean up" incoming redirects. Incoming links to an article is a very helpful tool, in finding context references and past interest in the page, such as this draft. This article, in particular, is virtually a mainspace orphan, and currently is the target of zero redirects. And it most certainly is not the role of MfD to decide on whether draft space content can be merged or is to be deleted, the question of merging content is for any editor without time limits. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the list of incoming links is interesting to review. Interesting to see where this topic has already been publicised, which is helpful in finding ways to get help in expanding the article, increasing incoming links, or considering whether the article is not in fact a good stand alone article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The draft contains a lot of material? Is it autobiographical? It may be similar material to that published elsewhere. It should be kept because it is really nice that the subject has here released the content verbatim under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. That simplifies reuse considerable, unless the draft is deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• * Redirect to mainspace article. This is the standard way to deal with a duplication in userspace. Fagles (talk) 13:13, 6 March 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.