Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Toric degeneration

 __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: userfy. It is impossible to determine the plausibility of a topic when there is no content at all, only a list of references, thus I judge the "keep" arguments here invalid. It seems most participants are fine with this small list of references being preserved for the creator's benefit, just not here, so I'm moving this to User:TakuyaMurata/Toric degeneration, where it will be move protected. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Toric degeneration


Contentless page abandoned in 2015. Only contains two refs. Legacypac (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: notable topic. -- Taku (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep sounds like a plausible topic, and a list of refs is still of potential use to the project. VQuakr (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: With the closeure of this RFC this Draft would have been eligible for G13. Author is on notice that the trigger is armed. Hasteur (talk) 11:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems a shade melodramatic. VQuakr (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Userfy failing Delete-Copying arguments of SmokeyJoe--Taku has many brief snippets like this that are unlikely to every expand to become articles, and contain no information worth merging. They are essentially notes. I think they would be better organised in larger fewer notes pages, but whatever, they are in the end Taku's personal notes, and they belong in his userspace; not draftspace.. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 13:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep. These snippets are either only for Taku, or they need context, which might be done in a WikiProject. Not in DraftSpace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

This 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) 17:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * My post was modified and than edit warred when I tried to put it back the way I wrote it. Legacypac (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Weird stuff is going on here, but the history of User:TakuyaMurata/Drafts shows some very problematic edits by Legacypac. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What's problematic is the attempt by Taku, since reversed the last I checked, to remove the page move redirect and therefore disable all the links to the page from various discussions like this one. Legacypac (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Userfy - A list of references with no content is better placed in the userspace. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 19:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I observe that I have yet to vote. 2 "references" that could potentially lead to a page,  An enabler of disruption, and the author continuing to argue a fringe consensus position.  Any content worth saving has been copied to the "single page draft" page (though I vehemently disagree with Johnuniq being a willing accomplice to Taku's disruption) and therefore this page can be deleted. Hasteur (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Johnuniq's attempt to put all Taku's notes on Taku's own draft page is useful. That was something I proposed (among others proposing). The problem is Taku pushed all his notes off on Johnuniq suggesting he does not really want them. Legacypac (talk)


 * Delete. Not useful, no info, not worked on. No need to keep forever. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note As per User talk:Power~enwiki, there a record in the edit history, diff, that this MfD has been closed once as "Keep".  Unscintillating (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I ask Unscintillating, what bearing does an an out of order NAC have on the final Admin closure of this MFD? I ask Unscintilating to strike (or better yet revert his addition (and mine in the offing) to allow the process to play out impartially. Hasteur (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Your post brings no evidence or policy that the closure was "out of order". The assertion is escalatory.  The words "mud slinging" in the edit comment further color the opinion stated as less than neutral.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As per WP:NACD, "Closures may only be reopened by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving their reasoning, or by consensus at deletion review." This text as written prevents a non-admin closer from re-opening his/her own closure.  I found that the word "only" was added here.  Suffice it to say that I support a non-admin re-opening their own closure under WP:IAR.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There are two basic rules of modifying talk page discussions, which are (1) we are here to build an encyclopedia, and (2) don't change the meaning of another editor's post. This is the basic point here, that there was discussion after the "keep" closure, not to mention edits to the draft, so the talk page should in some way either preserve the original text, such as with strikeout font, or leave a message that there is additional discussion in the edit history.  See WP:TPG for the text of the guideline.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Anyone can revert their own close. Your Wikilawyering is very poor. Please stop. Legacypac (talk) 01:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So your rules are ok, but Wikipedia's policies and guidelines...those are "Wikilawyering"? As for "please stop", do you think you are a Wikipedia boss?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Jesus, do you like hearing yourself talk? Because all you did with the 1:32 posts is show that this entire subthread 'never needed to exist. Hasteur (talk) 01:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Your preference for unspecified and competing WP:NACD and WP:TPG rules doesn't change the fact that my work is likely to have a long-lasting effect because of the work I did in researching WP:NACD. Unscintillating (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating, Power improperly NAC closed the page, it was contested, Power reverted the close. You didn't need to slather a fresh coat of paint on this discussion simply because there was a mistake that was undone that didn't bias the overall discussion. Hasteur (talk) 13:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment To clarify: I closed this as keep partly under the impression that a WP:AN solution would handle these en masse, all of the delete votes appeared to be in the context of that discussion. The NAC has been reverted by request of multiple participants, and the AN discussion closed as "no consensus". Power~enwiki (talk) 01:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Given that the Draft Owner as been blocked for related disruption, I now !vote to Delete, and leave it to future admins' decisions as to whether a possible userfication request is entertained. The page should be Deleted from DraftSpace, it is misusing draftspace.  The owner confuses userspace with draftspace.  Putting weird snippets in draftspace confounds the management of draftspace.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:50, 14 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.