Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Faithfully flat descent (2nd nomination)

 __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. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 02:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Faithfully flat descent


This Draft has seen no progress since May 2015. It duplicates a mainspace page at Flat topology to which Faithfully-flat descent is a redirect. When deleted G13 a request for REFUND was promptly filed without the normal wording "Please restore the page as I intend to work on it." The careful exclusion of the default wording suggests an intent to continue to store an alternative version of the mainspace page indefinitely in Draft which is not an appropriate use of Draft space. This page should be deleted or redirect after anything useful in the Draft is merged. Alternatively, the mainspace talkpage is an appropriate and much easier to find place to discuss alternative wording or expansion etc of the mainspace article. Link to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Faithfully flat descent for referance. Legacypac (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC).
 * Keep and merger later: This is an important technique both in algebraic geometry and commutative algebra. The redirect (to flat topology) is inappropriate since the target doesn't discuss the descent except cursory mention of descent. Descent may be a good merger target when the draft becomes more mature. -- Taku (talk) 23:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - If either the author or anyone who knows what they are doing says to keep it, let's keep it. Nominating possibly useful drafts for MFD is mind-bogglingly stupid.  Either let them go out via G13, or leave them alone, or keep them.  The more I read the arguments by User:Legacypac why nominating these drafts for MFD is efficient, the more I think that this is just off the rails.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Robert McClenon the author says keep on almost every page nominated. I've detailed several alternatives to leaving the old draft untouched. Legacypac (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - So? Maybe the author says keep because the drafts don't do any harm.  Please show me evidence that they do harm, and I will be glad to !vote to delete them.  If the problem is that you are allergic to the dust in these old drafts, stay out of the dustbin, or take a pill before going into the dustbin.  It appears that you, User:Legacypac, have an issue that I don't understand about wanting to get rid of these old drafts.  Either that, or you think that requesting to get rid of them will cause something to be done other than argument about whether to get rid of them or keep them.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * This has been extensively discussed at ANi already. Not going to rehash everything on this MfD. we are here to discuss deleting this old draft that appears to overlap with a mainspace page. Legacypac (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep, create article to replace redirect. I have made a lead section that provides adequate context. I'll create the article myself, if necessary. From the encyclopedic point of view, I think a separate article on this topic, split out of flat topology, is a valid creation. It is a long time since I studied this area, but I would have found it helpful back then. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I thought that there was supposed to be an interaction ban stopping Legacypac doing anything with Taku. This should include trying to arrange deletion. Anyway this page has potential. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Graeme Bartlett that is the third Mfd you posted this misinformation. Legacypac (talk) 06:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I am just cutting and pasting my comment. I am writing what I thought, which sounds like does not match what you believe. Anyway I think that drafts should not have a 6 month deadline, and if they have potential should stay around and be immune to g13 deletes. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , there is no IBAN between Taku and Legacypac in either direction. Can you please strike that so people who are unfamiliar with the situation don't get the wrong impression? Especially since you've copy and pasted it to three MfDs. (For future reference, you can double check IBANs and other editing restrictions at WP:EDR). &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2018 (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.