Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Quantum enveloping algebra (2)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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: no consensus except that the page should be moved back to its original title. I don't see any agreement emerging here as to what to do with this draft, and a related proposal at WP:AN failed to resolve what to do with TakuyaMurata's drafts generally, so all I'm going to do is move it back. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Quantum enveloping algebra (2)

[edit]
Draft:Quantum enveloping algebra (2) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Page created because the original little draft was moved to the Userspace of the creator. Instead of undoing the redirect at the first title and seeking deletion of the userspace page, this (2) title was created. Two attempts at a G6 technical deletion have been reversed, so I bring it to MfD. Legacypac (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect & Protect to Quantum group as a syntaticaly similar name is revealed in the external links. If the author of the page wishes to expand coverage of the topic, they may do it on the mainspace article page. Hasteur (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"syntaticaly similar" doesn't mean identical. The topic is notable and the page is otherwise free of problematic content; so there is no need to delete it. -- Taku (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to be identical. The Merged to article does need to have some mention of the topic. For this reason your argument is lacking in any standing in my eyes. Hasteur (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
with no meaningful content or lots of sources, how can we tell if it is notable. I've become convinced these stubs are not actually notable but are just part of a larger topic. Legacypac (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum, I am not opposed to Userfy under the following conditions: A binding promise from TakuyaMurata to keep this in his user space until he either promote it to mainspace or submits it to community ownership/review (ideally via Articles for Creation) and promises not to try to "own" the page once submitted. I've personally had enough with this insanity (get it userfied, then immediately move it back to the draft location). I am also not opposed to Deletion as an option, but wanted to try and retain what coverage could be userful. Ranking: MRP (original vote), Userfy (under the very explicit conditions given), Delete (as last resort). Hasteur (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
because you twice reverted my attempts to clean up the redirect mess you created. Legacypac (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No you attempted to covertly delete the page by moving it to my user page. I'm trying to fix that. -- Taku (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
your userspace is an excellent place for something you might work on someday. People keep telling yiu that but per your userpage, you see it as giving in to deletionists (June 2016) Legacypac (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, the draftspace was specifically created to hold drafts like these. If a draft like this cannot exist in the draftspace, what is the point of it? -- Taku (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page, and I believe all the others, has been copied to User:TakuyaMurata/Drafts so deleting the substub will hurt no one. Legacypac (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hasteur: I reviewed the history of the page prior to !voting. Personally, the trolling irks me more than Taku's non-ideal reactions, but this is MfD not AN so the behavior by either side isn't relevant. Respect the community's time by obtaining consensus on how to deal with these drafts consistently rather than chasing them around piecemeal. VQuakr (talk) 03:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually G6 is the correct tool, via {{db-move}}, when an editor is prevented from performing a move themselves, as seems to be the case here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:31, 13 September 2017 (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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Quantum_enveloping_algebra_(2)&oldid=1074157798"