Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:GKM variety

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: no consensus. There is no consensus for deletion of this Draft; however, there is also no longer a Draft page to delete or undelete as it was moved to Taku's sandbox. This close holds no bearing on any further editorial decisions made in relation to those edits. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:GKM variety

Single sentence or fragment of a sentence from April 2014 for a math-related draft. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a parallel discussion open for this draft at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 May 23. —Cryptic 03:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note Hold closing this again until the DRV is resolved. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked the DRV closer @Coffee: to come action this page as well. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why delete this? "Short", "old" or "math-related" is not a reason for deletion. -- Taku (talk) 04:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note: The page has been deleted. -- Taku (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The page under discussion (Draft:GKM variety) was moved to Taku's sandbox by User:RHaworth, where it is still available (see Special:PermaLink/721707163). There is nothing else to do here. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think you actually checked the page. The page was not moved to my user page. Also, the conclusion of this MfD is not to userify. All we have here is one "keep" vote (and a lone admin can't just decide on the outcome of the MfD.) -- Taku (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll let the admin who did change come clear this up. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Logs

2016-05-23T15:49:23 RHaworth moved page Draft:GKM variety to User:TakuyaMurata/Sandbox without leaving a redirect
2016-05-23T15:48:11 RHaworth restored page Draft:GKM variety (2 revisions restored)
2016-05-23T09:50:02 RHaworth deleted page Draft:GKM variety (G13: Abandoned Article for creation – to retrieve it, see WP:REFUND/G13)

— xaosflux ^Talk 21:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the logs. Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see the page in my user page. Do you? In any case, the mistake here is the last step; G13 doesn't apply since this page was not created through the AfC. So the correct procedure is MfD, this MfD. -- Taku (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The content is right here, immediately after that you redirected that page, you can un-redirect it at any time. Now I have no idea why RHaworth did what was done, and am currently awaiting his response. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Yes I now "found" the page. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 May 23 as well. But I'm still waiting for the page to be restored and someone to close the debate as keep.) -- Taku (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]

I believe this is at least the third draftspace single-sentence left there years ago by TakuyaMurata and brought to MFD. We have a repeated discussion about whether these should remain or be userified or deleted and I believe the prior ones have either been kept, deleted or redirected/history merged into a mainspace article that someone else unrelatedly has created. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Artin's criterion for one that remained. Even with a math undergraduate degree, this version gave me no context for me to say whether it's notable (and no a single thesis from 2011 isn't going to drive me to go figure this out). As normal in math, it's not obvious whether it's an important construct or just a construct created that no one particularly finds interesting. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is not productive to keep having the same discussion. Therefore, I have started a RfC at Wikipedia talk:Drafts. We need the agreement of what the draft namespace is for. -- Taku (talk) 04:05, 26 May 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.