Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Surface

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: Keep. Dekimasuよ! 17:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Surface

All the content is already in Surface (mathematics) or Surface (mathematics) § In science D.Lazard — (talk) 11:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (I didn’t start this draft.) It appears the draft is meant as a broad-concept article. I don’t know if we want it. —- Taku (talk) 12:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but a broad-concept article has never been meant as an article whose content is contained in a normal article. It is another question whether Surface (mathematics) should be moved to surface D.Lazard (talk) 12:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand, Dodge Charger is an example of a broad-concept article (an example cited in WP:SIA). For me, the draft in question is meant/can be developed as of this type: it (broad-concept) makes a lot of sense since a topological surface and an algebraic surface need to be treated essentially distinctly (e.g., Riemann surface is a curve in the algebraic sense.) —- Taku (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that having 2 articles surface (mathematics) and surface look bizarre (how is it that surface in math not the primary topic??). —- Taku (talk) 13:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We don't have two articles, surface (mathematics), and surface. The primary is a disambiguation page that leads primarily to the main mathematical topic and to more specific types of mathematical surfaces. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now because any merging of the draft into any of the existing articles will take time, and MFD is not a useful mechanism for things that take time. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Making Surface (mathematics) primary makes sense, and the current primary can be Surface (disambiguation). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In this case, the broad mathematical meaning is consistent with the lay meaning. There are also all of the subtypes of mathematical surfaces. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Merging with an article in the main sense would not make sense, as the content is already in the main space. Moreover, after merging, the draft should also be deleted. D.Lazard (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In fact, this draft may be considered as merged into Surface (mathematics) and abandoned, as its author Fgnievinski has edited several times Surface (mathematics) after his last edit of the draft. Thus, if Fgnievinski could confirm this, the draft could be speedy deleted per as WP:G13. D.Lazard (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with the moves suggested above by Robert McClenon, and will start the move request. D.Lazard (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - this is the perfect starting point for what should be a broad concept article at Surface. --Netoholic @ 20:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve as a WP:DABCONCEPT article on the general concept of a surface, as a boundary between two materials (as between land and air, sea and air, or where there is no air, solid and space). bd2412 T 02:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this draft draft has already be improved in this direction for leading to Surface (mathematics). There is a current discussion for moving Surface (mathematics) to surface at Talk:Surface (mathematics)#Requested_move_3_March_2018. I agree that this article deserve to be improved for better covering the non-technical aspects. This is another question. It is totally useless to keep a draft that is completely included in an article of the main space. D.Lazard (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where in Surface (mathematics) is there discussion of the concept of a surface in the physical sciences, as there is in this draft? bd2412 T 21:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the second paragraph of the lead and in Surface (mathematics)#In science. I agree that the order of the sections and of the paragraphs of the lead may be changed, but this should be the object of a normal edit process. I agree that the physical section could, and should be expanded. I have not the competence for that, and this should be done by physicists. Note also that Surface (physics) redirects to Surface (mathematics)#In physics (I have just remarked that the target section has been renamed, and I have added an anchor). I ignore why physicists do not edit this article nor create a true article. D.Lazard (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some context and sourcing to the draft. bd2412 T 16:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: move into Surface as a broad-concept article. The layman's idea of surface is its physical manifestation as experienced in reality, not the abstractions elaborated by mathematicians. fgnievinski (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination, because I support to move this draft to Surface in the main space. See Talk:Surface (mathematics)#Requested move 3 March 2018. Thus the MfD may be speedy closed. D.Lazard (talk) 17:07, 8 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.