Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Tensor product of representations

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: redirect to Tensor product. Although there has been a couple of edits since the nomination it is basically an abandoned draft. Note that as per Wikipedia:Drafts#Miscellany for deletion "non-notable" is not a valid deletion criteria. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Tensor product of representations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Page has not been edited in over 3 years, and appears to be a subtopic of Tensor product. Author of the page objects premptively to redirects of the draft space pages to mainspace parent topics, so I call the question: Do we want to have this Draft space page remain unedited for over 3 years when there is a perfectly good article to expand and potentially make a spinoff article that we could funnel energy to? Hasteur (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Close (struck because discussion below gives something of a rationale), no reason given for deletion. Thincat (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thincat: Please re-think. I'm only coming to MFD because Takuya refuses to accept a redirect. I would have loved to do a redirect to funnel the efforts there, however I indicated why. Forcing the question evaluates the community consensus and makes reverting the redirect a violation of consensus with ban consequences. Hasteur (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought you were seeking deletion without giving a reason. If you are seeking redirection this is the wrong place. If you are saying pre-emptive objection by the creator is a reason for deletion, I'm unaware of the relevant policy or guideline. At present I feel it would be a weak reason but might be persuaded to change my mind if there were a cogent statement or consensus somewhere. If you have come here to try and gain consensus, at present I am minded to vote keep. Thincat (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • And where would seeking redirection over a Tendentious Author be? Takuya has objected to redirecting/merging their pages in the past and has driven discusions into nit-pickey teritory to where the consensus is so diluted that having the discussion is worthless. Hasteur (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Discussion on the talk page is the wikiway. If an editor is tendentious then ... (well I always give up at that stage!). Might it not be better just to stop worrying about this completely harmless draft? Thincat (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • So we leave the page out there not contributing to spawning a new section of an exsiting page or a new mainspace page until next year when we have this same argument of "Taku, prove it's a mainspace viable candidate" or an admin with far less tollerance comes through and starts outright deleting pages with a liberal application of IAR Hasteur (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Yes it is a subtopic of the tensor product except we have tensor product of modules, etc. So, there is a good argument for having a standardalone article on this topic. For me, the question is the end result: do we end up with more encyclopedic content by deleting it or keeping it. What goal are we aiming to by deleting it? For me, the deletion is a step in backward not forward. -- Taku (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • See What about X for why this is a poor argument. I'd have preferred you accept redirecting the draft topic to the mainspace article and integrate what content is reasonable via WP:MERGE as the "of modules" does have a subsection on tensor product, but you've expressed your undying will to keep this stub in the cave never to see the light. Hasteur (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except it works in this case: it shows the topics belongs to the patter of tensor product of X. Anyway, why do you so badly want to get rid of the draft? I can see your desire but since you're not giving a reason, I continue to be puzzled. -- Taku (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I want to get rid of the orphan content because I don't want an admin with less tollerance to come in and start willy nilly deleting drafts that are more promising. Right now your drafts occupy approximatley 20 of the "oldest unedited Non-AFC drafts" there's the suggestion that something drastic (like compelling all pages in draft namespace be enrolled in AFC, or expanding the mandate of CSD:G13 to include all pages). If we can show that regular editing and challenging is reducing the size of the report then drastic measures won't be enacted. I would be more than happy if you spent as much time fixing these drafts as you do arguing that they need to be kept indefinitely as useless content in draft space, but this was asked for in May of last year and now we come around again because your drafts are on the stale list again. Hasteur (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok. Now I think you have given the real reason: this draft is old (it's not about the merit of the topic per se). We have been there; "old" is not a valid deletion argument. Ok. Maybe I'm just uninformed: why is it on the list a problem? You also said this is "useless content"; that needs to be determined by an avenue like this. But my understanding was that your argument was not content of the draftspace. For the record, I'm open to have discussion on whether to require some periodic activity on draft pages; but that requirs the community consensus. -- Taku (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to suggested target subject to proper references being provided. If the topic gets expanded within the merge topic to the point it needs a stand alone page, we can cross that bridge. Otherwise delete as unreferrenced stale clutter. Legacypac (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • Again you are failing to give the reason why we want to do that. Unref is not a valid argument for the deletion. "Unencyclopedic" or "non-notable" is a valid argument for the deletion. But that's not your argument, I think. I want to think I'm reasonable and can be pursuaded by a good argument. -- Taku (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not going to be responding to Takuya any more. Their modus operandi of nitpicking the argument to death to get no consensus is clear. I will be more than happy to respond to any other editor's questions, but Takuya's actions have long since transcended the point of being anything but Trolling and Tendentious. Hasteur (talk) 23:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait a moment: when does it become asking for valid deletion reasons a trolling. Discussion is so slow so just skip it! isn't an accepted practice. -- Taku (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. My personal inclination would be to redirect this to Representation theory#Tensor products of representations but I would definitely want to retain this draft under the redirect because it is a more general treatment which might become more appropriate at the target article as WP develops. However, the first part of Legacypac's suggestion is perfectly reasonable (and I agree about referencing) and not necessarily incompatible. Tensor products of representations are of course an aspect both of tensor products and of representations and a brief treatment at both articles might help the reader. I don't agree with Hasteur that (apart from deletion and redirection) Taku is the only person who may alter this draft. Any of us may edit the draft and redirect/merge subject to consensus. I sympathise with Hasteur that there might be irresponsible deletion – fortunately a keep here would make speedy deletion more egregious. Now, the reason I am voting keep rather than redirect is the same as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of lakes by volume – XfD is a bad place to be discussing matters of editorial judgement. So, the draft should be kept and there should be collegial talk page discussion about how to handle this topic. Thincat (talk) 04:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Cotensor product, annother creation of the same author who also made the same arguments only to be shot down. CC Thincat). Hasteur (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I am understanding the figures, Taku has created 7397 articles and 66 have been deleted.[1] That's a lower proportion of deletes than you or I have. In draft space there are 199 but a high proportion, 39, have been deleted.[2] So Taku's use of draft space is very low compared with article space. That doesn't prove anything about quality of editing or use of draft space but I'm not going to assume that Taku is wrong here. Again, please, try to stop worrying. Thincat (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2017 (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.