Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Artin's criterion

 __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 keep. JohnCD (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Artin's criterion


Abandoned draft with no useful content and no edits since early 2014. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete however much the author screams. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * question -- not my field, but would it be better to expand and move to mainspace?  DGG ( talk ) 23:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm with DGG. What is the point of this nomination? Obviously, the draft needs more stuff; the actual statement as well as a ref. Here is some general ranting about not specific to this nomination, but about which this nomination is an instance of: we're here to build the encyclopedia, or at least that was the case in the beginning. Over time the atmosphere has changed. Now apparently there are too many users who enjoy the game: deletion fights as well as other forms of conflicts. Dealing with them is too time consuming for me. I myself have little attachment to the draft; it took me perhaps less than a minute to create the draft and I have already spent more time writing this post, the time I could have used for something more productive. I'm complaining about the time I have to spent to deal with something like this. We need to remember why we are here in the first place, for building the encyclopedia? Or for the game? -- Taku (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. Mixed feelings here. I remember the spirit of the early days, but it was a smaller project and necessarily over time the bureaucracy grew and things changed. All that being said, the draft states a concept not found in the mainspace and as such has some use. There's no deadline here, after all. Mackensen (talk) 02:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep the deletion reason given is certainly invalid, and in opposition to the purpose of Wikipedia. The first delete vote seems meerly to attempt to punish the creator, which is certainly not in any policy here. The topic looks to be notable, and so would be kept if it was in article space. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with DGG, in particular since the draft creator is still active. Although I am not sure it would survive in mainspace as is, some additional expansion would be helpful. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:40, 4 February 2016 (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.