Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Frobenius splitting

 __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 - the only content is also already in the older article. — xaosflux  Talk 02:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Frobenius splitting


Abandoned draft not edited in nearly two years, with no content whatsoever, only a single reference. Stifle (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. -- Taku (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep . Deny satisfaction to frivolous nominations of worthless harmless DraftSpace.  DraftSpace doesn't need cleaning if cleaning needs MfD.  Either that or delete all of DraftSpace as a net negative.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ricky below. Should have checked the mainspace title. Forking into draft space is counterproductive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. The norm for draft space is delete when dead for six months. This is in fact the tip of the iceberg of Taku's misuse of Wikipedia as a free host. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * But who decided on "six months"??? In order to dispel this type of confusion, I have started a RfC for the standard for drafts at Wikipedia talk:Drafts. -- Taku (talk) 04:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am much happier to agree to delete things where a WP:NOTWEBHOST is pointed out, than where a draft is merely six months old. Deleting old things that don't violate anything in WP:NOT is absurd, creating a bias against a certain type of editor, and it involved an unimportant part of the project created for this very purpose.  That said, that page lacks context for anyone but the author; I think it belongs in his userspace.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Frobenius splitting has existed since 2011 and already contains the same citation. Why anyone cares that someone three years after the article was created posted the same citation for their own amusement is beyond me but redirect does nothing but encourage pointless endeavors like this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, sometimes there is a simple explanation: mistake. Obviously, I missed the topic was already covered in the main namespace (the draft page was not meant a fork). Should I have been more careful? Yes. But "assuming the good faith" is relevant here. --- Taku (talk) 21:07, 2 June 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.