Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Moduli stack of elliptic curves

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 Moduli stack of elliptic curves. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Moduli stack of elliptic curves

Draft created with no content describing the topic, only 2 references. Hasteur (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's an abandoned draft that just happens to lack the AfC template. Not viable as an article in its current form or any form reasonably likely to occur. WP:NOT should control here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it's notable. Yes, it's incomplete but that's precisely why it's in the draft namespace. -- Taku (talk) 10:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC) See the very end.[reply]
- If it is notable, then prove it. As it currently stands there's no demonstration of notability or context to explain why it is notable. Running out to land grab all the potential notable draft space articles is a misuse of the draft namespace. I would also note that TakuyaMurata is the author of this draft and left it in this state for over 2 years while going on to other works. Hasteur (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is really no need for the proof; if you have a little bit of background in math, then you know it's notable. -- Taku (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. If I, someone who graduated college with a Bachelor of Science degree don't even have the foggiest idea of what you're talking about (because there's no prose to explain the topic) how much chance do you expect a random reader in a library to understand the page? Hasteur (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree the subject is notable, but the draft has no useful content. Sławomir
Biały 16:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The correct next step is then to develop the draft not the deletion. -- Taku (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, the correct step is to put content and context in to explain the topic. Your massive land grab of several Draft namespace titles from 2014 without going back and fixing them is a gross misuse of the purpose of draftspace to the point of questioning our purpose here... Hasteur (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - And why are you the one who decides on the purpose of the draft namespace? I don't work for you, remember? -- Taku (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're right, you don't work for me, however you're bound by the Pillars/Rules/Guidelines/Expectations/Consensus to use the system in a certain way. I am an agent enforcing the consensus already established that Drafts that are created simply to get the "creation" credit by land grabbing large swaths of potential titles is out of order in any namespace. Hasteur (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        And I believe the consensus is that there is no deadline, which you clearly disagree with. I've started with Wikipedia talk:Drafts#RfC: is there a deadline for a draft. The dispute clearly has nothing to do with this particular topic. -- Taku (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Taku. Starting a draft with references is not a reason to delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless improved significantly before this is closed. The purpose of draft space is to develop viable articles. Instead of arging here, spend time making it viable. Legacypac (talk) 04:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You're then arguing for the development of the articl, not the deletion. I agree this discussion is a waste of everyone's time. The simplest solution is not have it in the first place by not making nominations like this. -- Taku (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this never should have gone to MfD after Taku said it was still useful. VQuakr (talk) 04:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USEFUL designates your comment as one to explicitly avoid in deletion discussions. Why do you persist in this fallacy? Hasteur (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because that section of the essay makes sense for articles but not draft space. VQuakr (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel to quote exactly where it says that These arguments to be avoided in deletion discussions don't apply to article space. You can't because your argument rests on "It's Useful" and "There's potential", which other editors have clearly indicated that this does not get a pass on. Hasteur (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having trouble parsing. Do you mean "draft" rather than "article"? VQuakr (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep If anyone else wants to take up this article, then they can still do so. Deleting what's already there so far wouldn't encourage that in any way. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: I hate to say but the party is over. There is now Moduli stack of elliptic curves thanks to User:R.e.b.. There is really no point for the draft and consequently this discussion anymore. -- Taku (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Taku. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:26, 25 March 2016 (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.