Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Quillen metric

 __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  No Consensus. Nakon 04:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Quillen metric


A single inline reference and one end reference with zero content explaining the topic or giving any potential demonstration of notability. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Moduli stack of elliptic curves for similar draft with zero content Hasteur (talk) 03:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as not useful. Legacypac (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep; author is active and says he finds it useful; that is enough for any draft that doesn't have larger issues. VQuakr (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * For shame . WP:USEFUL is explicitly called out as a bad argument to make for any deletion. Hasteur (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not that kind of Useful - there is not enough here to make a useful article. It's blank of meaningful content. Legacypac (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: It's an abandoned draft that just happens to lack the AfC template. Not viable as an article in its current form or any form reasonably likely to occur. WP:NOT should control here. Wikipedia is not a collection of references lacking any content. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 09:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the page was not created through the AfC process. -- Taku (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. The idea of drafts is to encourage editors to work on topics.  Having almost empty, incomprehensible drafts runs contrary to that aim.  I can easily imagine that it would actually discourage other editors from starting articles on these topics, because someone else is already "working" on them.  There is no useful encyclopedic content to these drafts, and the "Draft" namespace is not Taku's personal sandbox.  If he wants to keep collections of notes like these, he can do that in his own userspace.  The draft namespace is for article drafts.   S ławomir  Biały  11:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: The same reason as before. I'm tired of repeating myself. -- Taku (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Userify to User:TakuyaMurata/Quillen metric if the author wants it or delete. It seems like it's abandoned for all intents and purposes and if the author is interested, they can keep a userified version for their own work. Otherwise, draftspace shouldn't deal with the equivalent of domain name hoarding by the first person who picks a name and puts something there. If the author does not have any further interest in their own work, I suggest that, after userification, they include it with WP:Abandoned Drafts for others to work on if they so desire. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Userfy per Ricky - if the author is active and finds it useful, but it doesn't seem to be a very viable draft, userspace seems like the right place for it. A2soup (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom, abandoned and redundant to Quillen metric. Editor should be encouraged to edit mainspace, not make copies. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The mainspace page was created after this MFD went up, so technically it's not really redundant. Hasteur (talk) 18:30, 20 May 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.