Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Tensor product of representations (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: delete. The majority of the comments on this discussion are arguing that there is or isn't a DEADLINE. These more or less even out numerically. The strongest argument for deletion is that this draft, which has not been significantly changed in three years, largely duplicates content that is already present in an existing article. The strongest argument for keeping (oddly enough given by a "delete" voter) is that this subject could be written about in a substantial and significant way based on other websites that discuss the topic. Given that the content exists in an Article, and given the relative lack of progress in improving either the draft or the article subsection, the deletion argument outweighs the keep argument.

There is no prejudice to the existing subsection being spun out into the existing redirect iff it ends up being expanded to a point where it is no longer feasible to keep were it is. Ideally a talk page discussion will determine this.

As a note, I am happy to provide access to the deleted content for improvement of the article subsection if necessary. Primefac (talk) 01:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Tensor product of representations

 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Re-calling the question because for reasons beyond my understanding, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Tensor product of representations was overturned. Considering that for 3 years between June 28th of 2014 and August 1st of 2017 this page remained completely unedited by anyone for which the author of the page has been active on Wikipedia, for which the author has been reminded on several occasions (1,2) that their pages are causing concern for editors who are trying to keep Draft namespace from being the permanant repository of half concieved pages.

The author is more than willing to spend thousands of bytes defending these walled gardens of "their creations" to the point of spending nearly 200 times as many bytes defending these creations than actually doing anything about them. I do not wish to entertain a redirect on this page as the author seems more than willing to argue that a redirect is not endorsed by the previous MFD's consensus. This page consists of nothing but a partial definition from a graduate level geometry/methematics textbook, so this page has effectively zero hope in it's current form for surving in mainspace as a stand alone page. Draft does not even have one reference to prove that it is anything more than something made up Hasteur (talk) 14:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * There is currently an open ANI thread regarding the behavioral aspect of this; I suggest it would be more efficient to wait until that discussion is resolved as it may inform the best course of action for the drafts. "Piecemeal at MfD" seems like the worst possible way to approach these drafts. VQuakr (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * which discussion is that? I can't seem to find it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You want AN and not ANI. Seems to be a similar mistake that many people make. Hasteur (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * D'oh, yes - AN not ANI. . VQuakr (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete, do not redirect - noting that this is not my area of expertise, this draft appears to be simply restating the information currently found at Representation theory, without any substantial additions or noteworthy progress which would justify keeping a copy in draft space for over three years. I object generally to cross-namespace redirects from draft space to article space (excepting page move redirects resulting from promoting drafts) because they are of no use at all to readers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete no redirect this time. Enough is enough. The creator refuses to finish it or even do any work on it. The creater rejected my last kind suggestion (in the 1st MfD) of a merge and implied redirect (which became the close) by taking the close to DRV, of all the time wasting useless things to do. The redirect allowed anyone to reverse the redirect and work on expanding this into mainspace at anytime in the future. Any interested editor can copy this sub-stub to their userspace and work on it whenever but the presence of this abandoned Draft attached to this editor has generated enough drama now it needs to be deleted.  Legacypac (talk) 03:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic seems quite notable and so we might get to it in the fullness of time. And creating multiple pages like this very discussion is a counter-productive way of reducing clutter.  See WP:LIGHTBULB. Andrew D. (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What would your definition of "fullness of time" be? Later this month, next year, 2020, 2030 (as the author has suggested)?  If the author and no intrested editor can be bothered to do anything about this page after having attention brought to it on multiple occasions, what should we do? There's a perfectly workable section of an existing mainspace page that could be the host of this content, but the idea of merging/redirecting is procedurally object to by the author of the page who exhibits significantly disruptive WP:OWN. Merging/Redirecting is being objected: to on filibuster grounds whereas there is a true benefit to funneling attention and volunteer effort to mainspace pages and sections. Hasteur (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * My view is that drafts of this sort can safely be left indefinitely. Consider this discussion page on which we are posting.  We commonly keep such pages indefinitely, long after the discussion has been concluded.  We do this because we have no reason to delete them.  The same applies to this draft.  If there is no pressing reason to do something about the draft, we should just let sleeping dogs lie.  Impatience or intolerance are not adequate reasons to delete such. Andrew D. (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Taku made an edit to improve the article 34 minutes before the draft was nominated for deletion.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't consider a procedural edit to carry out the consensus of the DRV to be improvement of the page. Notice that they have yet to perform one single edit more to disprove the reasons for this MFD beyond that procedural consensus application. Hasteur (talk) 00:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * All I notice is that you are the person who started this MfD. I also checked WP:Redirects, and it says nothing about "procedural redirects".  The sum of your arguments is not that you are unfamiliar with basic WP:Editing policy, but that you are on a fishing expedition using MfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I suggest a possibility of a merge (I am striking my previous Merge vote) with Representation theory, there is additional mathematical treatment here that would be worth including in the target article. Provided the merge attributes Taku's authorship there is, I think, no need to keep the redirect because the other (mathematical) editor's contribution is too slight to be copyrightable. However, I have no objection to the redirect being kept (or to keeping the whole draft). For those in doubt, the reason the previous MFD was overturned is because there was consensus to do so. Thincat (talk) 09:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have lost confidence in the manner of curation of this page so I have changed my bold vote. My rationale is, however, unchanged. Any merge could (and in my view probably should) be done when the storms die down. Thincat (talk) 07:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * déjà vu Didn't we have the same deletion discussion/DVR less than a week ago? Has the quality of the draft deteriorated that it now needs to be deleted? Obviously a new deletion reason is needed for the second nomination. -- Taku (talk) 13:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Please discus the merits of this MFD and not DRV or the previous MFD. Hasteur (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep for all the reasons I stated in the DRV that just ended. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You seem to be mistaken to think that DRV is AFD round 2.  Please keep your discussion on the point at hand. Hasteur (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

This notes page, and I believe all the others, has been copied to User:TakuyaMurata/Drafts User:Johnuniq/TakuyaMurata's single page draftpage so deleting the substub will hurt no one. Legacypac (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "Somebody has a copy without proper attribution" is a reason to delete the copyright violation, not the good version. Unscintillating (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

It was in his userspace until he moved it and sought deletion of the page than modified many of my signed edits against my express wishes, including the one above. So evidently he does not really want the notes on these pages. Legacypac (talk) 07:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Relister is involved, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Tensor product of representations, and this relist should not be allowed to stand. Unscintillating (talk) 23:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Closing another related discussion does not make the relister "involved". Both are perfectly usual admin actions. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The MfD states that the result of a DRV was (bold in original), "closure overturned". This is an admin whose previous closure less than a month ago on this exact same topic was overturned (based on incorrect analysis, I think, but that is a separate matter), on record that he would have deleted the article had the editor not been active on Wikipedia, relisting a discussion where the consensus has moved to "keep".  As per WP:Relisting can be abusive, "Relisting articles for further discussion when a clear consensus has already been found can be disruptive to the process."  Unscintillating (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like I didn't actually !vote on this one; keep and determine what if any action to take on these drafts centrally rather than piecemeal. VQuakr (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your strategic !vote. Hasteur (talk) 01:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Did the AN/ANI/whatever discussions ever end in some specific conclusion? Or did they just get bogged down in arguing and fall apart with no decisions made? &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There has never been a conclusion at AN. Calls to settle it there are disingenuous for that failed. We are backnto dealing with the pages one by one. Legacypac (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have made a request to have that thread closed, but so far, nobody's stepped up to the task (let alone the triumverate I was hoping for). To be honest, I'm not surprised.  If I was an admin (which I am) who hung out at WP:ANRFC (which I'm not), I would take one look at that discussion and run away screaming.  -- RoySmith (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The discussion there is still open. But in any case, a lack of consensus there doesn't equate with permission to spamming these to MfD - it's not as if AN and MfD are the only two possible fora for resolution. MfD remains a horribly inefficient and inconsistent place resolve this particular concern even if a problem is agreed to exist. Thus far, there isn't even consensus on that. VQuakr (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * @User:RoySmith it seems an effort for stop filibustering across multiple venues by opening another venue for filibustering was not a good idea. Legacypac (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * with no respect your attempts at negotiating have only moved the collection of problematic pages from one location to annother. Your attempts to give Taku almost everything he wants without giving others the first thing we wanted is the worst kind of "agreement".  Hasteur (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Your edit summary comments on the contributor, not on the contribution. Unscintillating (talk) 01:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - Reasonable draft. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 19:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete--Per IvanVector and Hasteur. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 11:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: Stale draft with contents inconsistent with WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a textbook: this draft is merely an unsourced definition of a concept in group theory. Even if we had a proof to go along with it, Wikipedia definitely is not a database of mathematical proofs. I'm not even certain this is a useful definition of the concept it purports to represent. A page [//groupprops.subwiki.org/wiki/Tensor_product_of_representations evidently on the same topic on another wiki], which is managed by a PhD in math from UChicago, looks quite different from this material. Enough already. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 06:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The "enough already" shows that your !vote is behavioral support for a central Wikipedia authority telling the production floor workers to step up their creativity. Your comment implies that our content contributors lack the skills of a PhD in math from Chicago, but even if true that doesn't mean that our content contributors can't decide for themselves if and when this page has no future.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Your previous comments on this and other MfDs have demonstrated your unwavering ability to ignore the point of any comment you're responding to while simultaneously presenting total nonsense that you expect the other party to debate (how you can find that Mendaliv's comment supports a central Wikipedia authority is beyond me), but I'll bite.
 * It sounds like you may be unfamiliar with the purpose of this kind of discussion! MfD and the other XfD pages are the processes by which our content contributors decide if and when a page has a future on Wikipedia. During these processes, contributors discuss whether or not a given page is suitable for Wikipedia, presenting arguments based on criteria laid out in our content and behavioral policies in an effort to build something called consensus about the page. So in fact, by commenting in this MfD, you yourself are actually participating in an effort by content contributors to decide for ourselves if and when a page has a future on Wikipedia. Isn't that neat? &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you misread my !vote that badly, Unscintillating. I'm saying that there is evidence, in the form of the work of a recognized expert in the field of group theory, that this representation of this narrow subcategory of group theory may be incorrect, inadequate, misleading, or otherwise not useful. And, as PMC states, the relevant category of content contributors are the participants in this discussion, which does include you, but also includes me. I'm here and I'm not leaving. Don't like it? Don't participate. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Great, so you've found additional material that may be useful in improving this draft. Unscintillating (talk) 01:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, perhaps not. The article at the other wiki itself isn't a viable Wikipedia article, and of course, being a wiki page, isn't a reliable source. So we're still nowhere. And in any event, material that may be useful hinges on someone caring enough to use the material and improve the article. This is a stale draft. Nothing has been done with it in over three years. The creator shows no interest in using this material, and nobody else has either. If there is potential for this draft, I could be swayed otherwise, but vague waves to nonbinding essays (WP:TIND) are as unhelpful as this draft appears to be. Your platitudes, as Hasteur rightly calls them below, are not only unconvincing, but border on irrelevant. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 04:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.  Wikipedia is not a battleground.  There is no deadline, nor is there any benefit to imposing central authority over this draft, now or anytime in the foreseeable future.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Pot, call kettle for you have just disproven your platitude with your above ABF of other editors and attacking them. Your strategic !vote is worthless. Hasteur (talk) 01:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Never looked at what else they do here, but if a selection of Unscintillating's votes and comments at MfD was brought to ANi I project an MfD topic ban would be forthcoming. I can't make heads or tails of what they are posting. Is it trolling, WP:CIR, some ESL issue or soemthing harder to fix? I'm confused whatever it is. Legacypac (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Since you make so many posts at ANI, your memory might need a refresher, even though it has been less than 24 hours ago that you wrote, "The real issue is User:Unscintillating is displaying the same WP:CLUElessness I've seen displayed in discussions I've encountered them on. Recently they accused me of swearing at MfD for linking to development hell Legacypac (talk) 03:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)" Unscintillating (talk) 02:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh I remember writing that just fine. The posts I referred to are still on MfD at Panzer 88. Now what do any of your posts have to do with the appropriateness or viability of this draft that no one wants in improve in 3 years? Legacypac (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * By your competing statements, you initially had "seen...discussions", but a day later had "never looked at what...they do". At first in your competing statements you are clear that the issue is "cluelessness", but a day later you state that you are having an inability to attach meaning to my writing.  But back to the big picture: Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.  Wikipedia is not a battleground.  There is no deadline, nor is there any benefit to imposing central authority over this draft, now or anytime in the foreseeable future.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * imposing central authority What are you actually talking about? Can you give some diffs to prove that editors are trying to do this, or is it just a conspiracy theory? —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 07:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - With no redirect. The creator has not bothered to improve this draft for three years. Instead, they display WP:OWNy behavior by defending their creations to the last byte. I do not understand why editors are so determined to keep a draft that shows no promise of being expanded upon, let alone reach mainspace.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Forgot to say Delete, particularly per TheGracefulSlick. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above, but agree particularly with Ivanvector and TheGracefulSlick. Wikipedia is not a private webhost, and this information could be contained in existing mainspace articles if need be. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete on the basis of not being used to improve WP.  DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 21 October 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.