G13 doesn't apply. Taku (talk) 04:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Closing subsequent discussion that does not change the outcome noted above. Sandstein 08:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Nah. The issue is that the page should have not been deleted in the first place, since it was not created through the AfC process. -- Taku (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did you want to the page back or did you just want to argue about it? —Cryptic 05:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Both, I guess. It is important to note we have the consensus that the deletion was a mistake. This was certainly not the first time G13 has been applied in a wrong way. (And this is the correct place for such a discussion definitely not at WP:REFUND.) -- Taku (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. If there was a technical mistake with G13-ing, please explain better. Redirect the draft to Morse theory, which is where any such material would be added if anywhere. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, G13 doesn't apply in this case since the draft was not created through the AfC process. Also, the redirect doesn't make sense since the decomposition isn't a part of Morse theory, if somehow related in spirit. Recently, G13 has been used to delete pages that have nothing to do with AfC, often by mistake like this one. Is it your position that the speedy deletion was perfectly legitimate in accordance with G13? I believe the correct procedure was to send the page to MfD not speedy. -- Taku (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Probably it is best to take this allegation of G13 overenthusiasm to WT:CSD. You could be right, but that is the place to raise it with regard to future G13s, and to amend the wording of WP:CSD#G13. NB. I am not sure that you are right. When you move a draft to draft space and leave it for a year, it is liable to deletion if no one sees its value. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that's perhaps the best place for the general discussion and I will not oppose if a new G13 is enacted to be used to delete, well, anything old. But until then this deletion was wrong, procedurally speaking. I understand some editors see a need for deletion. All I'm saying is that the deletion attempt on non-AfC pages should go through MfD and not G13. -- Taku (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want your work subject to deletion, move it back into your userspace. Add a note to the top stating your intentions with it. Unless you are hoping that someone else will find it in your userspace and contribute, to be very safe blank the page during periods of inactivity. Looking at this page as it was in January, if it were MfD-ed, it would easily be deleted with little attention, given the recent popularity of meta:Immediatism and meta:Deletionism in practice there. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That argument sounds a bit backward; obviously the correct solution is not to delete the non-AfC drafts just as we don't delete the articles in the main space due to staleness. That would save everyone's time. Also, I doubt the MfD has resulted in the deletion. I for one would have voted no and it would not be hard for other editors to find reliable sources to establish the notability. -- Taku (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DRV is the place where judgements are made about whether or not deletions were in-process. This one was not in process. Nor was it a good WP:IAR exercise of deletion power. Also, this DRV should not have been closed as it was, but should have been allowed to reach a conclusion. Thparkth (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Hobit (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
