Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geometry of an algebraic curve


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Everybody agrees that this is not mainspace-worthy. But opinions are divided between moving back to draft and deleting. By way of a compromise, I'm deleting it, but with the proviso that anybody who actually intends to work on it may request, via WP:REFUND, its restoration to draft or user space.  Sandstein  14:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Geometry of an algebraic curve

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

See the edit history of this article, which everyone admits is in draft form. Way back in August 2017, an admin protected the article because of an edit dispute. Ever since then, various parties have attempted to redirect, merge, or draftify the article, all of which are either impossible because of the old protection or have been resisted by the article creators. You will also see in the edit history a challenge by one of those vested editors to take it to AfD. So here it is. An article that even the creators have admitted is a draft is not ready for primetime. The page protection installed in August 2017, for an entirely different reason, is not an excuse to embarrass Wikipedia with a half-baked article. The true solution to this conundrum is to Draftify and then the creators can take all the time they want to whip it into the proper shape, but this AfD is possibly the only viable procedure. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 12:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Now my recommendation is to delete rather than draftify based on the ensuing discussion. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 01:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 12:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Return to draft. I am truly baffled by the history of this.  It has been forcibly moved into mainspace against the wishes of the page creator who had been the only editor for two years.  The highlights of the dispute are;
 * August 2017, User:Legacypac adds an AFC submission template to the draft
 * The creator User:TakuyaMurata reverts on the grounds the draft has never been within scope of the AFC project
 * User:Hasteur moves the page regardless declaring that it is ready for mainspace
 * Creator moves the page back to draft
 * User:RHaworth moves the page back to mainspace and ....
 * ... immediately protect the page from further moves . As clear a case of WP:INVOLVED as ever there was.
 * A move request on the talk page was closed as "wrong venue"
 * So there it has sat ever since with the creator being unable to do anything about it until April 2019 when he requested a merge to a different draft
 * This was also declined as wrong venue.
 * By this time I imagine the creator is feeling pretty exasperated. None of the editors involved in enforcing this move to mainspace has previously had much to do with mathematics articles so I question their competence to judge whether it is ready for mainspace.  Reading between the lines, the motivation for this was likely to clear a very old draft from the category.  Most of the subsequent comments have been of the WP:SOFIXIT variety.  For what it's worth, this is not ready for mainspace imo.  I think the best thing to do is move it to a userspace draft where the longstanding convention has been not to mess with established editors' drafts. SpinningSpark 17:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Return to draft I looked at the history of this and agree with Spinningspark's understanding of the matter. I'm not a fan of draft space myself but, while it exists, it's a reasonable place to put half-baked stuff like this and if the principal author wants it there, that's fine by me.  The people trying to push it out of draft space seem to be acting in a pointy, disruptive way.  Our policy, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:DEADLINE indicate that there's no practical limits and so we shouldn't go inventing them as a form of busywork. Andrew D. (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Oh you sweet innocent children... I suggest you look up TakyuaMurata's history of taking potentially sub-sub-sub topics from a post-graduate geometry/mathematics textbook and creating a mainspace (or draftspace page) that has perhaps 2 lines in it in WP with a "I'll work on it some day" promise. Some day is nowhere in the near future (at least in practical terms of asking over a 2 year period) so we're left with all of these creations that are retaining dust.  Now after a year and a half of it being a redirect to algebrac curve, Takuya decides to backdoor attempt to overturn 's enactment of [consensus].  Frankly I invite editors to look at some previous history to understand that this is just waiting out the fury for a few years only to attempt to overturn a previous consensus without actually establishing a new consensus. Hasteur (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "Oh you sweet innocent children" ? Don't you think that is a little condescending?  Now you put this article in mainspace yourself, against the wishes of the creator, declaring that it is ready for mainspace.  You now want to delete it?  Did you only move it to mainspace so you could delete it, by redirect?  Until your response here, I was prepared to AGF on motives, but now this is looking more and more like a personal vendetta against Taku.  Your alleged attempt at overturning consensus is a diff of adding a proposed merge template, hardly overturning anything, and the alleged consensus is a diff to a discussion that reached no firm conclusion as far as I can see, other than that the article as written shouldn't be in mainspace.  There is nothing wrong with maintaining messy drafts for long periods of time: Waveguide filter was created on 7 November 2009, but not posted to mainspace until 25 April 2013 and becoming a Featured Article on 4 January 2014; Planar transmission line, created 3 May 2013, moved to mainspace 9 February 2017, Featured Article 14 February 2019; Electric bath (electrotherapy), created 29 March 2011, moved to mainspace 2 April 2018, Good Article 31 May 2018 ... I could go on, I have lots more like them.  My point is, if editors are not allowed to let drafts mature over very long periods, some of these articles may never get written at all. SpinningSpark 23:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll be condescending because either you are not cognizant of the previous history by lazyness or willfull ignorance. Please see WP:OWN to counteract against the wishes of the creator (Nobody owns a single page on wikipedia). All your other examples are WP:WAX. What we asked Taku for the longest time is to not create new drafts until they've fixed the existing ones.  If you had even bothered to read, you would see that the Outcome of that RM was to merge/redirect the article to a parent article.  We tried for 2 years to get Taku to improve the existing pages with promises of "I'll work on it" that effectively were attempts to get Taku to not use Draft namespace as a giant "I created this" land grab and instead edit existing closely related articles to the point that WP:SPINOUT is the best way to create the new page. Finally because you're argument is a WP:ATTP, it's clear that you didn't bother to read any of the history showing how Taku has been a persistent disruptive factor with these Post-Graduate abstract mathematics pages.  You would see that many different strategies to retain the content (Merging,Redirecting, asking for a timeline, etc) only to be met with pulling out every last rule in the book to resist having the nearly hopeless drafts suggests that it's a vanity play instead of wanting to improve the encyclopedia. Hasteur (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * In what way was moving the article to mainspace meant to fix any of those problems? In any case, it is entirely gratuitous to harangue an editor to get a draft completed.  Editors are volunteers and can work on what they choose when they choose.  You are not some kind of workflow supervisor and it is not your business to tell him not to create new drafts.  My examples are not WP:WAX, they are perfectly valid examples of drafts that have hung around for a long time and gone on to become some of our best examples on Wikipedia.  Here's another one, User:Spinningspark/Work in progress/Achieser-Zolotarev filter.  I created it in October 2011, it's in about the same state as Taku's article and I've done nothing with it since despite creating dozens more drafts since then.  That doesn't mean I'm never going to do anything with it, nor can you legitimately assume Taku will do nothing with his. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 07:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Return to draft space from which there was no good reason to remove it in the first place. Prior to my making the page into a redirect, I was fairly incensed that it had been moved into main space at all, as my exasperated edit summaries probably indicate. (My good-faith assumption at the time was that the move was done by someone who wanted to keep draft space tidy but had insufficient experience with mathematics to know just how fragmentary the prose was.) Having this in main space makes the encyclopedia worse; if having it in draft space furthers some obscure "land grab" to gain domination over an esoteric topic in abstract mathematics (which anyone else could start writing about if they cared, Taku's draft notwithstanding), well, I can't find it in myself to care. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 03:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I would also be fine with deleting it. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment from Nominator - If it happens to come up, I had no prior familiarity with this mess and came across the article while doing work for the New Pages Patrol. The discussion here appears to illustrate the toxic environment of infighting and accusations behind this article's bizarre history. Any admin who reviews this AfD should absolutely not have any prior involvement (WP:INVOLVED). I will admit however that my original recommendation was to draftify, but if that simply enables this pathetic saga to continue, perhaps pure deletion is the best option. --- <b style="color: DarkOrchid"> DOOMSDAYER 520</b> (Talk&#124;Contribs) 16:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Like I came upon this article through NPP, and I must have looked at 6 times, and passed on what to do with it. Normally, on math (or science articles, for that matter), I usually only review it for copyvio, formatting, and whether or not it is an actual topic. Then I put a request on the appropriate project page asking for someone with more knowledge in the specific area to take a look at it for accuracy, etc. But the article's history made this a difficult decision. Normally I'd suggest simply draftifying, but based on the above discussion, I think the best outcome in this case is deleting. Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 19:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Based on what I gathered about the history, I would say that the article should be draftified. However, the article itself isn't about a cohesive subject - it's a disjoint collection of topics related to the algebraic geometry of curves. This really belongs to algebraic curve unless such a section (which currently does not really exist) gets too large and a WP:SPINOUT is warranted. Another option is to merge this content into the algebraic curve article, but the material here is too unfinished to be worth merging in its current state. In the end, this article should be deleted as-is, unless someone is willing to merge it into the algebraic curve article in an expanded state. There is also a relevant discussion about spinning off material from the algebraic curve article into standalone articles that is still in progress. — MarkH21 (talk) 09:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * and I invite you to see that between September 2017 and April 2019 the page existed as a Redirect to algebraic curve with a involved (using the lower case involved and not Admin Involved) editor reverting the content back. Hasteur (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Return to the draft space for now. The creator of the page in question adds a lot of content, very often only after incubating it for a long time, and often relies on others to bring it into full compliance with some standard Wikipedia conventions. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please recondsier when looking at the history of the page: Page was created in draft space June 2nd 2015 and was actively worked until June 9th 2015. Page went undedited until August 19th 2017 when tracking for AFC was put on the page to ensure that an abuse of the Draft namespace was not being committed in addition to helping provide more appropriate categorization. The same day, the AFC template is reverted off. Based on a fair text reading, the content had at least a 50% chance of succeeding in mainspace, and therefore was promoted to mainspace Taku attempts to assert ownership and yank it back to draft space An administrator reviews and believes it's eligible for mainspace to the point of move-protecting the page. Through a Consensus discussion at WP Mathematics, it was decided to Blank & Redirect to Algabraeic geometry And so it remained until April 17th 2019, when Taku undid the blank/redirect and tried to argue to merge to Draft namespace (and get the content out of mainspace again) My point in taking this historical stroll is to show how fundamentally Taku wants to waste even more time with buerecratic wrangling to get his way. Hasteur (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no need for anyone to waste time on this. Let Taku have the draft in his userspace. Everyone else can proceed to forget about it. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 16:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment has split off and moved the material out of this article into other separate articles and a separate draft (that already contained other content) in order to reduce the drama and argument here. I think that has effectively resolved the issue and allows us to focus purely on the content rather than this issue of edit history. This happened before the above accusation of fundamentally Taku wants to waste even more time... and the proposal to move this back into draft space is now moot. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. — MarkH21 (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Based on 's comment just above, there isn't any need to keep this non-article around as a draft. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Return to draft. Once there, we can start applying the usual "can this potentially become and article and has anyone made improvements in the last six months" standard for whether to keep it around. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.