Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Dolbeault-Grothendieck lemma

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: delete . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Dolbeault-Grothendieck lemma

The page history is really interesting here. It started as a redirect from Draft to mainspace, which is completely pointless for a otherwise blank page. Twice now we have tried to G13 it but been reversed. I tried G6 on a blank page but was reversed. Delete by discussion to allow interested users to explain why this zombie non-draft needs to continue to exist. Legacypac (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the history: ~~Well, the topic is notable and currently it is not covered in mainspace.~~ —- Taku (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dolbeault_cohomology#Dolbeault-Grothendick_lemma Legacypac (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't strike comments and add new ones above replies. "The history" is new. Legacypac (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. My mistake (I must had the other draft in mind). But then why page needs to be deleted? It doesn’t look like a draft. — Taku (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have redirected it to mainspace (to avoid being a blank page). —- Taku (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You previously blanked the Draft page with the message you created Dolbeault-Grothendieck lemma as a redirect. Keeping a draft for redirect that was independantly created is not helpful. Legacypac (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But this is not a draft, but a redirect and a redirect is often kept to preserve the history. Why the page hisotory needs to be gone? —- Taku (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment we have sorted out this Draft has never been a draft article but just a suggestion for a redirect by an acct with 35 total edits. The topic is covered in mainspace as part of a larger topic. The exact title already exists in mainspace as a redirect. This page serves no purpose and should have been G13 deleted. Legacypac (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have two converse questions. First, who is proposing to retain this useless redirect, and why? Second, what harm will be done by retaining this useless redirect? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed my vote; I now agree there is probably not much the page history to preserve. -- Taku (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Tempest, meet teapot. Teapot, meet tempest. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Tempest, blow away the tea. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2019 (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.