Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Coherency (homotopy theory) (2nd nomination)

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: move to mainspace. I'll also take the liberty of procedurally nominating the article at AfD as some have suggested below, so that the issue can be put to rest. ‑Scottywong| [talk] || 22:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Coherency (homotopy theory)

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

Closing Admin: I know Taku will procedurally object to keep their content under every last possible justification and therefore strongly suggest that any promises/pleas/compromises be given as little weight as possible as the record demonstrates that Taku, at least in these Mathematics sub-stubs in draft space, is not here to further Wikipedia's purpose. Hasteur (talk) 11:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To the closing Admin, Hasteur has been known to lie and personally attack other editors; they have been warned on multiple occasions. A case in point: the allegation “Taku, ..., is not here to further Wikipedia's purpose.” has been disproved several times. I strongly hope for everyone to see who is trying to develop the content and who is acting on personal vendetta. It is Hasteur that has to find a way to move on; see [2] [3]. — Taku (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noting the

WP:IDHT) so that they may continue the same behavior that others have called attention to. Further administrators (such as Hut 8.5 have suggested that Taku move these pages out of Draft namespace and into their own personal userspace to work on. This move to alternative locations (Taku's Userspace, Wikiproject Mathematics space, Mainspace) have all been rejected by Taku repeatedly and to the point of requiring a formal Topic Ban to prevent further disruption to the central purpose of editing to improve wikipedia. Hasteur (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

The truth is that those so-called short sub-stubs no longer exist, except perhaps this one (many others drafts are much more substantial). Notice how this user chose to ignore my comment just below. Because this truth is inconvenient for them. The truth is that I have a very good track records of finishing the drafts; again the inconvenient truth. The truth is that the community has determined that the drafts have potential to become mainspace articles (not inappropriate for inclusion). It is time for Hasteur to stop painting a picture that is not the reality. — Taku (talk) 04:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that one-sentence-drafts prove to be problematic (to my surprise) but, at this moment, I think there are not many of them; almost all of them have been moved to mainspace or merged with others. Claiming this is still an issue is what I mean by "Hasteur cannot move on". -- Taku (talk) 00:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Drafts are drafts of articles and exist to become articles. If the author has had years to write a real stub article and has not done so, there is no reason to think that he ever will, especially since all that is probably necessary is to summarize the paper. If the author wants to summarize the paper in the next six days, they can mainspace this in the next six days. They have already wasted our time long enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Robert McClenon: I strongly object to “think that he ever will”; many draft articles like 80% o 90% of mine) have moved to mainspace and there is no reason to think this draft is an exception. The reason why taking time is because it is not an easy topic to write (“especially since all that is probably necessary is to summarize the paper” is simply untrue; it’s not that simple.) —- Taku (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The reason that there was no reason to think that it would ever be written is that the paper was null for three years and was deleted for six months, during all of which time you could have written something. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok. But this observation contradicts the reality, which is that even after years passed since the page is created, many drafts started by me do get finished and moved to mainspace. For example, writing often requires finding a good reference and that can depend on my work or travel schedules, etc. —- Taku (talk) 02:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I have expanded the draft a bit (though the quality is quite low). —- Taku (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Welcome back to
  MFD, User:Hasteur. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep(see below): I’m not at liberty to make a comment on how the draft space operates. But, as for the nature of the topic, this is a notable topic as far as Wikipedia is concerned and I don’t see why Wikipedia cannot cover it. —- Taku (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Does the
  preterition indicate that the subject is under a topic-ban from discussing draft space, or that the subject belongs to the Pythagorean brotherhood and is under an oath of secrecy? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Yes the topic ban. Since the scope of the topic ban is disputed, it’s safe for me to stay silent on the draft space usage. —- Taku (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Mainspace - If the author can't get it to where it will survive an AFD in six days, there is again no reason to think that he ever will, and there is no need to give him more than six days to get it to where it is ready for mainspace. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It has been a non-stub (not even a sub-stub) in draft space too long. We are tolerant as to the quality of what is in draft space, but this has been an abuse of draft space. If the author wants to keep a lot of stuff that may or may not ever be ready for article space in user space, that is all right. If the author wants WP:WikiProject Mathematics to keep a To-Do list, that is up to the project. But there are limits on draft space, even if not many limits. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, I cannot quite respond to this (without an expression of my opinion on drafts) but please note there is Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages. -— Taku (talk) 01:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  But, generally speaking, from the perspective of content development, it doesn’t matter at al that whether an article is written in one day, one month, or one year. Or, neither if who starts and finishes the article. Wikipedia started with the idea that it is better not to micromanage who, when and how the editors write articles, since that turned out to be more productive.

  So, from this perspective, deleting this page achieves nothing since the topic still needs to be covered. You, on the other hand, believe it is necessary to go from 0% to 80% and then go back to 0% and then go up again to 100%. -— Taku (talk) 03:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Well, I didn't say what is being attributed to me, and it appears that you are not lying because you do not know truth from falsehood in this discussion, and mathematicians, like philosophers, are expected to know logic, which distinguishes truth from falsehood. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was referring to your proposal that after 6 days if the draft is 80% of what is needed to be moved to mainspace, then it should not be continued to be developed. Maybe that's not what you meant? although in this particular draft, maybe 6 days can be enough. -- Taku (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Because Taku has finally provided content for this page to move it off a
  walled gardens that nobody but Taku is allowed to edit. Fourth it prevents us having to be back to argue a 3rd nomination because Taku believes they know better than the consensus of the community. Hasteur (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Please notice another set of falsehoods put by this user in a bad faith, as I believe. E.g., “nobody but Taku is allowed to edit.” is completely false. The consensus is (was) that the draft has a potential to become a mainspace article. The user is making the case for the interaction ban. — Taku (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I’m making another library trip today to find one more ref and with that, the draft should be good enough to be mainspaced. Whatever piles of words put this by bad-faith user, I think my actions show who is a good guy and who is an enemy of Wikipedia. —- Taku (talk) 23:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Move, either to
  WP:DUD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I’m quite aware of the essay; I have an opinion on the essay (why it is wrong) as well as many ideas on how the draft space might be fixed (I am not at liberty to share the opinion and the ideas) . —- Taku (talk) 03:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• But if Taku refuses, then Delete as disruptive pointless games with works in violation of
  WP:NOR. While there is some unsavory conflict between Taku and User:Hasteur, the origin of which I have no idea, I only find Hasteur's version to ring true. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep the nominator seems to have had a bitter dispute with the draft creator going back years, which I don't think is helping here. I don't agree that Taku is using draftspace as an "indefinite storage location". I strongly suspect the subject of this draft is suitable for mainspace, either as a standalone article or as a component of some other article (unlike most drafts). Draftspace is supposed to be used as a "storage location" for that kind of content, and I don't see how trying to write stubs on technical mathematics topics means you are "not here to further Wikipedia's purpose". Nor do I see how forcing a content creator to move it to mainspace, or to somewhere else, helps the encyclopedia at all. Yes, as noted by Hasteur above, I did suggest that Taku move this to userspace, but only so that it would be immune from the fixation with deleting drafts that some editors have. Hut 8.5 06:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are far too many of these drafts that are sitting unedited, reach the six-month G13 deadline, have the G13 tag removed or are
  WP:REFUNDed, and then sit for another six months unedited until the cycle repeats. The draftspace is for drafting, not cold storage. I am preparing a mass nomination. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Move to mainspace: After adding refers and making further edits, I think the draft is now ready to be moved to mainspace. (So, this MfD is essentially moot.) -- Taku (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no problem with promoting this to man space and letting it stand on its own merits, but I want a cast iron consensus/agreement that this page will not be returned back to draft space or to the author's user space as both of these are behaviors that have happened previously around the locus of Mathematics draft stubs created by TakuyaMurata. I do not want to have to do this again in 6-9 months because of various strategic gambits (similar to ANI-flu) where the previous unacceptable behavior is returned to once scrutiny/fervor has died down. Hasteur (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • • User:Hasteur - I think that we mean that the only way that this can be moved back to draft space is if an AFD moves it back to draft space. If an AFD finds that it isn't ready for article space, it is better to draftify or userfy it in its current form than to delete it. I think it is ready for article space, but I have forgotten more math than most editors have learned. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Robert McClenon: With respect, this draft was created in January of 2016, G13ed in August of 2017 (and REFUNDED), Nominated for MFD the first time in February 2018 (citing no improvement), G13ed again in March 2019 (and refunded again), G13ed again in September 2019 (and refunded again) and now we're at this MFD. Observe the version of the draft prior to the current MFD nomination after having been through a previous MFD and 3 CSD:G13s. It's only when the author's effort is threatened with a well attended MFD that actual effort to edit enough to potentially be viable is expended. Bargining, pleading, promises of no remorse have all been met with silence from the Author. That is why I want a return to Draft space barred because we'll have to go through yet annother round of this nonsense. I have no problem if Taku keeps the draft in their userspace, but to have all this content in draft space while racking up more and more G13 reminders shows quite clearly that in the Draft namespace for mathematics sub-stubs, Taku is not here to further the purpose. Hasteur (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move to mainspace. The draft is at present a referenced stub that explains the very basics of the approaches to coherence in homotopy theory. As evidenced by the refs, it looks like a notable topic. This ongoing dispute between draft hangers-on and obsessive draft cleaners is tiresome and far more disruptive of productive encyclopedia work than keeping a few old drafts kicking around. As someone who occasionally helps maintain the Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages, I can attest that there is slow but reasonably steady progress in getting draft pages to mainspace, including Taku's creations. Too slow to promote all of them in six months, but progress is there. A notable topic and a stub with no fundamental problems suggests keeping the article. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withrespect, but when thousands of pages were created in draft namespace and left for years with only prefunctary efforts to keep it off the deletion radar, when it takes a
    Heyman standard to motivate the author or anybody interested in the subject to actually do something about the page (see how this page as been CSD:G13ed multiple times and been trivially edited to reset the clock) you have to ask about the motivation and suitability of these drafts.Hasteur (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

  Another lie detected; there is no “thousands of pages”. There is no community consensus to destroy the draft pages in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages, many of which are not even started by me. — Taku (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to mainspace per Robert McClenon, and let it sink or swim there.
  talk) 01:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Create any necessary redirects and incorporate this info into mainspace/disambiguation page The depth of information here is unnecessarily tedious/detailed (I'm not as well-versed in math as Robert McClendon, but I do have a minor in it + an engineering degree). It seems to me that the information contained here could easily be incorporated into 3-4 sentences in homotopy, any necessary redirects created, and a note/link placed in the coherence disambiguation page. This would satisfy its inclusion as valid information in Wikipedia, be searchable, and at the same time end a draft with little improvement. Buffs (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.