Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Tropical compactification

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.

Draft:Tropical compactification (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

A sentence and ref. Last worked on Aug 2015. G13 declined 6 months ago but up again. Legacypac (talk) 10:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: tropical geometry has too broad scope and so there is a room for an article on this important construction. — Taku (talk) 11:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per
  dictionary definition. If there's more to write, could it be added to compactification (mathematics) rather than being written about separately? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Of course, despite this discussion, there is not much to keep; so the question, as I understand, is whether this is a viable topic (i.e., notability). No, compactification here does not refer to compactification (mathematics) in the literal sense; compactification (algebraic geometry) would be a topic of which this draft would be a subtopic (and that article is non-existent). — Taku (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's the question in my mind, and in my opinion it needn't be destined for a separate article as long as the topic is useful somewhere, which I'm not questioning. I don't know what it is exactly and the current draft doesn't help. Draft space shouldn't be used for hosting working content indefinitely, and in this state I don't think it could possibly be useful to anyone other than yourself in terms of expanding encyclopedic content, but as long as you're assuring that you have plans to use it at some point, I don't see any reason to delete. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don’t take this in a wrong way but answering that last question would involve my view on the draftspace, which I am not at liberty to express (but of course, it is not meant as my personal note, I use my userpage for my personal stuff.) If, on the other hand, the request is for me (or some other math editor) to provide more context so that we can even have a discussion on the viability, I can certainly agree to do that. — Taku (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understood; no, I wasn't really anticipating a reply at all. I don't think I need to understand it. You're the subject matter expert here and if you say it's useful then I'm just going to take your word for it. If this were a fully-developed article and we were discussing at AfD then I would have more strict criteria. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep With a few more sentences of explanation, it could be promoted into mainspace as a stub.
  talk) 16:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Promote to mainspace I think it's now in a good enough state that we can call it a stub without bringing shame upon ourselves, and further improvements are more likely to happen if it's more visible.
    talk) 15:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep - Never should have been nominated. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft space is not for indefinite storage of notes. Legacypac (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Promote per recent improvements. A fine stub. Had the nominator achieved their goal of "cleaning draft space" or whatever, we would have lost this content. Shame. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Done - Robert McClenon (talk) 07:13, 3 March 2018 (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.