Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:2-category

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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: delete. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Draft:2-category


Nothing about this one-sentence draft provides any context for why we should maintain an idle fork of the long-existing article 2-category in draft space. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Bicategory: actually there are two notions of 2-category: the strict one and the weak one. As you can see, 2-category is about the strict one, while the draft is about the weak. That was the reason why this draft was started. However, I just noticed we have bicategory, which is about a weak 2-category and so this draft was not needed. (Of course, this distinction should have been clarified, which I now just did.) –– Taku (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Nothing depends upon the existence of the draft, so redirecting isn't necessary. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 03:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I was just going to say that: I can't see a good reason for keeping a draftspace redirect to a preexisting article, especially as it would not be a R from move. I'm not a mathematician and I don't understand the difference between strict and weak (I don't doubt there is one) but I think it would be better to either put a hatnote at 2-category explaining that "weak" 2-category is described at bicategory, or else merge the articles. Also I think it would be encyclopedically useful to explain in either or both articles what the difference is. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh I see you kind of did that already, at strict 2-category. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as even the author that removed my G13 now says it is not needed. Legacypac (talk) 21:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note that this is an invalid vote: (1) that it was once tagged G13 and the tag was later removed has nothing to do with whether the page should be deleted and (2) that the draft turned out to be unnecessary is also not an argument for the deletion (it's an argument for the redirect.) The deletion of this paper needs to solve a problem that can’t be solved by a redirect. -- Taku (talk) 04:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry User:TakuyaMurata but you don't get to call my vote invalid. The community has had enough of your games. I assert that with this post you violated the topic ban imposed on you by the community by discussing deletion process in an MfD directly in contravention of the sanctions recorded by User:Primefac. Legacypac (talk) 15:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine I stroke it out. Happy now? -- Taku (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Draft for which there was no reasonable content to be salvaged.  Author is back to the same burecratic games that they were up to when they won the Indefinite topic ban enumerated here. They were warned about disruptive point making, and yet here we are again... Legacypac procedurally nominates a page for G13 that happens to be Taku's.  Taku objects on "no reason at all" to force a MFD decision for which they have admitted there was no "good" reason to object to the G13 and have us do the burecratic dance.  I explicitly call on  to sanction TakuyaMurata for violating the terms of their topic ban. Hasteur (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2017 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.