Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supercompact Space


 * 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 Procedural keep. This discussion was opened 14 years and 26 weeks ago minutes before Articles for deletion/Supercompact space was opened, and the result of the latter was Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 22:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Supercompact Space

 * – (View AfD

I am writing a report on why this article should be deleted. First of all, this article states 8 facts, with some 100 references or so. Just delete the article. If this article is so important, then why don't you prove it by giving names of people who actually research this topic. No one does. Also, see the following five small reasons:

. Paracompactness and compactness ARE IMPORTANT topics and that is why no one has challenged them. However, supercompactness is not nearly as important and shouldn't be on an encyclopaedia such as this one. . This page has hardly anything. It has just stated facts. There are only a few points written on this page. It is a useless stub. . There is no point in using a WHOLE page to talk abou supercompactness. This article should be written under Alexander's Subbase Theorem. It has hardly any information. . There is someone who keeps removing this sign for speedy deletion and gives no reasons why he does this. Could an administrator please see that he stops?

Is supercompactness worthy of study? Was it a concept, so important that mathematicians were dumbstruck by it as soon as it was defined? The "Nagata-Smirnov Theorem" article is a good example of an article which shouldn't be deleted since it is extremely important. Is supercompactness even as important as the definition of a point? I may seem to be exaggerating but I am strong on my word. I understand that some people (such as "Oded"), have not been against me just for the sake of it. Others have said that this article shouldn't be deleted and given no reason to back this up. I am going to report this article to an administrator. Some articles that are extremely important have no references given to them (there are heaps of such articles in mathematics). Why do people waste their time give 800 references to such a negligible article? Please answer this.

In conclusion, this article is useless, and ineffective. It provides no applications in other elements of point-set topology and has only a few facts. This article is like wasting one whole piece of paper just for writing a single word. Someone should delete it. If not, I will.

Topology Expert (talk) 09:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - this AfD has been done incorrectly in a number of ways. The actual page in question is Supercompact space, and no notification has been posted to that page of the AfD. PianoDan (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment - Wait - this is fourteen years old, and was already resolved here: — Preceding unsigned comment added by PianoDan (talk • contribs) 17:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.