Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Lie's formula

 __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) 21:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Lie's formula


Is this a formula that is notable? It is not listed at List of things named after Sophus Lie which I know doesn't mean much but there is a Lie product formula which I don't think can presume there is a general formula. It's a draft from December 2014. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Created by an active editor which only last month responded to an inquiry about the drafts, inferring the intention to get around to work on them (or at very least a disinclination to delete). If the author wants to delete, then consider my keep withdrawn, but I don't see a problem here. The question "Is this a formula that is notable" should've just been directed to the usertalk page. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 20:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: there are many closely related formulas, due to Lie and the others. Maybe the article title is too generic? Perhaps Maybe it can be merged into some other article? Perhaps. We need to delete the content? I just can't make that cognitive leap here. I acknowledge that the draft is not in a good shape, it needs to address the concerns raised in the nomination. But that's precisely why it's a draft not a main-namespace one. The way Wikipedia works is that we don't destroy useful content in order to solve problems, but put them away so they are not visible to the public (whence, the draft namespace.) Taking your style of nomination to the extreme we can just delete all stuff in the draft namespace; that would be very efficient, but if the goal is to build the encyclopedia, that's not a good option. Perhaps this is too difficult to understand.... (Incidentally "old" is irrelevant as far as deletion discussion is concerned.) -- Taku (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * keep. It’s a draft not an article so notability does not come into it . Let it be worked on and see what comes of it as an article, before deciding whether it needs improving further, merging, deleting. But there is no need to act now.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 08:33, 13 July 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.