Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Cotensor product

 __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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Cotensor product


One of over 50 (User:TakuyaMurata/Drafts) very old Draft pages that are less than stubs by an editor that absolutely refuses to bring them up to article standard or even group the info in his userspace. If no one thinks this topic important enough to at least make it into a meaningful stub and provide some references for verification and to establish notability, it should be deleted. Draft space is not for the indefinate hosting of material not good enough for mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 08:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOTWEBHOST is policy. Even if the topic is notable, this abandoned stub is not helpful. A new article can be developed when someone is available to properly present the material. Johnuniq (talk) 09:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Except the policy doesn't apply here: which type of an off-topic content does this draft fall into? The topic is encyclopedic for one thing. -- Taku (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * NOTWEBHOST does apply in draft space so, your rejoinder is invalid. Hasteur (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No no not because it's the draftspace. It doesn't apply because the topic is not an off-topic (please reread my reasonsing again.) -- Taku (talk),
 * Delete per nominator. Also, it's not at all clear whether a stand-alone article on this topic would be appropriate, even if it were to be developed beyond the current sentence fragment.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 11:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - abandoned stub, clearly not anywhere close to becoming a meaningful article. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously it's not ready for the mainspace. That's precisely why it is placed in the draftspace. -- Taku (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * See Drafts Drafts are administration pages in the Draft namespace where new articles may be stored. They help facilitate new articles to develop and receive feedback before being moved to Wikipedia's mainspace. therefore your rejoinder is invalid. Hasteur (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry but the quote doesn't say "not ready for the mainspace" means non-new. -- Taku (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to Tensor product of modules or Coalgebra as the closest mainspace pages that are similar enough for people to be interested in. Author of this page consistently takes a sub-subsection of mathematics, puts a minimal definition on the page backed up by minimal definition, yet when someone comes in to try redirecting it to a nearyby subject and try to improve, the Author reverts claiming that this sub-subsection needs to have it's own page for the case one day in the future when someone wants to develop the page.  Suggested that the author wants "creation" credit with all these land grabs and have tried multiple ways to collaborate with the author only to get WP:IDHT like arguments. Hasteur (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * How does the redirect help further content development? For the record, I'm not interested in the creation credits: I have actually started quite a few articles on the mainspace and so I don't need more credits. Besides, I don't think it is a valid deletion or redirect reason: an editor is an egoist but why must delete his contents? -- Taku (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirects are cheap. In fact, a redirect page may even avoid the creation of duplicate articles on the same subject, and thereby actually save data space. Furthermore, if you cared about these pages you'd put up and actually improve your already existing creations instead of tendentiously filibustering any attempts to clean up the pages you've already made and have expressed only the bare minimum to kick the problem down the road until the next time we notice your pages are still out there and still have the same problems. Last May's discussion clearly indicated that the Math Wikiproject saw problems with your creations, yet you elect to claim that the community saw no problems with it. One of your creations was noted again this year for the exact same reason, and still you elect to claim community consensus.  Even now some of the community has extended you an olive branch by letting you keep the pages in your userspace, but you don't want that.  The only reasoning left is you want the creation credit. Hasteur (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't need to keep filibustering if I don't have to; I would rather edit than engage in the discussion like this. The problem is that no valid deletion reason is given except the deletion for the sake of deletion. "The only reasoning left is you want the creation credit." No; the reason is that we have different understanding of the purpose of the draftspace. -- Taku (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: the draft is a single sentence fragment, created two years ago and not edited since -- there appears to be no realistic possibility of this being made into something useful. (Even if there were, the existing form is so pointless that deleting it would not make the task any harder.)  Finally, it seems more natural to me to develop content on the topic of cotensor products as a section in coalgebra and then do a split if/when it should ever become substantial enough.  --JBL (talk) 01:04, 29 July 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.