Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Bivariant theory

Add links
Source: 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: merge to Chow group#Variants. I don't know the first thing about math, so I'm not going to do it, but anyone else is welcome to do so. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Bivariant theory

Draft:Bivariant theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned draft up for G13 with promising draft note requesting MfD Math topic. Legacypac (talk) 02:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Wikipedia draft space is not supposed to be a permanent repository of half baked ideas. No objections to forcably redirecting (i.e. redirect and fully protect) to Chow_group#Variants, but I would wager the author of this draft (and the only Keep vote at this time) would procedurally object on a burecratic reason simply to be yet another time suck. Hasteur (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He's been on my talk page violating his topic ban, deleting my comments and casting asperationsn against me about nominating another of his stale drafts for deletion.. Legacypac (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will comment on the "behaviors" as opposed to the draftspace policies. It is this aggressive behavior that has to be stopped and in fact that was the whole point of the topic ban discussion. Hopefully, the third party can weight in. -- Taku (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This draft was treated exactly like a bunch of other ones that fell stale tagged with this tag. I posted up a string of them that I would have otherwise G13'd in normal course. Legacypac (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was not referring to the nomination of this draft. I was saying your seeming attempt to try to get me violate the topic ban (by increasing the temperature of the discussion or inviting me to respond to you); it is that behavior that needs to be stopped (not nomination). -- Taku (talk) 02:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't really know how MfD and draft space work very well, so I won't go with a straight "delete" or "keep" However, a quick look leads me to think that this is a notable topic. On the other hand, given that it hadn't been worked on in a couple years, it would certainly make me nervous to keep it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there no supertopic into which this could be merged? In theory, if merged into another article, it could be expanded there until there is enough material to justify breaking out into a topic of its own. On the other hand, if there is no notable topic of which it is a subtopic, I don't see how it can be notable. bd2412 T 03:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose this draft can be merged into Chow_group#Variants. The theory is rather complicated (for example, it has quite a long definition) and so I thought it's better to have a standalone article on the topic. -- Taku (talk) 03:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This does look more like a thing-to-be-merged than a thing-to-be-erased. XOR'easter (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BD2412: And my wager regarding the burecratic objection paid off in spades. Again it's the same Taku M.O. of looking for the tiniest wedge and use that to derail the MFD from any objective improvement on the subject. Hasteur (talk) 05:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hasteur, please drop the stick. So far Taku has kept (barely) within the bounds of their tban. They are allowed to comment on MFDs of pages they've created. Please stop aggravating them. Hell, they're even somewhat agreeing with the merge. Primefac (talk) 13:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge While I agree that there are sources out there to satisfy notability, it's perfectly reasonable to develop a stub like this as a section in a broader article first, then split out when it gets too big for the parent article. This has the advantage of providing good context for a what currently amounts to a definition and a reference, while making the information accessible to readers who just want to know what a bivariant theory is. I'm happy to do the merge if that becomes consensus. --Mark viking (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per everybody. Even Hasteur's somewhat abusive comment is an action that would be served by a merger, and the information would be preserved. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge. Seems like a reasonable stub to me. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:42, 15 February 2018 (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:Bivariant_theory&oldid=1074085905"