Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Nakano's vanishing theorem (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. During the discussion the page was substantially improved, and has been moved to mainspace by an editor that did not participate in this discussion. (I've overturned the first close, and reclosed this). (non-admin closure) Legacypac (talk) 09:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Nakano's vanishing theorem


2 months since the last MfD and no meaningful expansion of this topic since December 2014 (adding the title to the page is not a meaningful expansion. Plenty of pages of text on notice boards have been expended to keep pages like this, but zero effort on actual  content. Time to delete this sentence fragment with no ref. Legacypac (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Close: it's disruptive to keep nominating the same page for the deletion. The correct procedure when you disagree with the outcome is DVR. -- Taku (talk) 23:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. The last MfD was closed as keep only two months ago; this renomination is disruptive. VQuakr (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The last MfD close was fine. Here we have 24 more words (after thousands) of protest and zero effort to improve this page. Let's see if the nomiinated page consists of anything meaningful in a week. Legacypac (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as wikipedia is not a permanant repository of half concieved ideas, a Policy. The only context is that this concept is a subset or superset of another concept (cor which there is no mention of the parent concept). Page does not have a single reference to back up the concept, so for all intents and purposes we cannot verify it's existance and therefore could be entirely a fictional creation.  I would note to VQuakr that Consensus can change and in light of the creator of this page's other problematic Draftspace effort they will have a far less rosy reception. Hasteur (talk) 01:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In light of 's work, I feel that a forced Merge-Redirect (or skip straight to redirect) would be the best compromise between retaining content and deletion. I would also ask that if redirect is part of the consensus that the page be fully edit protected to prevent disruptive disregard for the consensus decision as is want by certain involved parties. Hasteur (talk) 01:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete- This draft has been abandoned since 2014 and it's clear at this point that it will never be made into an article. Draft space is not intended to be a repository of useless fleeting thoughts. Reyk  YO!  05:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I gave it a bit of a copy edit and added some references. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * if you can get it ready for mainspace, let us know. Legacypac (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Close, since this is only a small part of a case, pending with WP:AN, and imho just a cheap attempt to generate a persuasive precedent for the whole, annoying case, where one "sanitizing engineer of draft" refuses to agree to any consent, not satisfying his universal desires. Purgy (talk) 08:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * How about working to improve the draft or commenting on the topic instead of commenting on other editors? That is how XfD is supposed to work. Legacypac (talk) 11:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Pages in draft space do not need to be of entire articles. A draft for a section of an article can certainly be appropriate. However, I'll go along with the idea that mere fragments – a single reference or sentence – is not enough. I would never vote delete for a fragment I thought was constructive but I wouldn't object either. Where my dividing line would go in general I don't know but for me the recent edits by (thank you) tip into my keep zone in this case. Thincat (talk) 12:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Nakano's vanishing theorem. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 19:04, 6 September 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.