Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Sheaf (infinity category)

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: Userfy. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Placed at: User:TakuyaMurata/Sandbox/Sheaf (infinity category)

Draft:Sheaf (infinity category)[edit]

Unsourced draftspace draft from February 2014. There was a proposal to merge it onto Cosheaf back then as well but since nothing here is sourced, I don't see the point of merger. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think the deletion is a solution for sourcing issues. It is always preferable to expand Wikipedia rather than shrinking it (unless that's your agenda). -- Taku (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You wanted it merged (and that was a suggestion years ago), but if there's nothing sourced here, what is there to merge? Do we merge the unsourced material and then remove it afterwards for being sourced? What does that gain other than WP:BURO? I presume you suggested a merger but the topic is already covered so why keep the draft if it's already covered? Keep something that two years ago was already covered in mainspace but not merging it to the mainspace version (or merging it and then removing all that as unsourced) seems like a misuse of time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, there are some definition and example that can be merged. Are we looking at the same page? The sourcing is irrelevant here: you can alway merge content, regardless whether there is a reference or not. In fact, often, a simple way to fix the sourcing issues is by merging the content into a better developed article. In any case, there is no need to delete anything here. - Taku (talk) 02:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - What's the point? Merge it, tag it cn and then remove it for not having a source? How does merging it into another article improve on the fact that you created this years ago and didn't provide a source? Can't you find one? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - What's the point of Wikipedia?? Do we really need to ask such a question? What is the purpose of this deletion nomination? As I said, there is no need to delete anything here (other than to satisfy some of your bizarre personal need you're not getting from the real life). As I said, we can fix the sourcing issue by the merger. You still need to give a clear reason why you oppose the merger and a concrete suggestion on how to improve th article. -- Taku (talk) 09:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        What's the point of having this content around? To be a WP:WEBHOST for no reason? You proposed to merge it years ago so back then you didn't think a separate article was necessary. Do you want to propose another merger? If not, why not? If so, what's the plan? After that merger, again, we'll perhaps copy this content over and perhaps either remove it for not having a source or tag it for not having a source and if none is found, remove it for not having a source? You created hundreds of these types of pages and I have no idea what your goal with them is. You clearly aren't interested in improving them so is it just hope that someone else comes along and does that for you? Do you think it's irrelevant that there are no sources here? Do you think that math concepts are all inherently notable and don't require any sources or even a minor explanation of their context? Do you want these mainspaced so that more eyes see it and possibly do that for you? The oldest drafts out there are your math pages and someone else who created dozens of one sentence pages on various German WWII fighters but those at least have sources. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like WP:OR and/or WP:NEOLOGISM. If real, it surely belongs in Sheaf (mathematics)? Cosheaf should be merged. DraftSpace should not be used for drafting spinouts if the spinout is not already a significant section in the parent article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's neither OR nor neologism (did you do research at all?) I agree it may be a good idea to merge it to some other article; it's just a deletion is not a first step for merger. -- Taku (talk) 23:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think it is either but there is no way to know since there's no sources on the matter. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - The question here is why we need to delete it instead of doing something about it. -- Taku (talk) 00:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is a misuse of draftspace. I think you are hiding in draftspace to avoid arguments from knowledgeable other editors. If the material is appropriate, add it to existing articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 09:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Taku's userspace. (Commenting because my relist didn't attract any further comments.) I don't think deletion is appropriate because this draft has no demonstrable harm, but since Taku doesn't have immediate plans of working it into a live article, the best solution is probably to move it to Taku's userspace as a shelved idea for future use. Deryck C. 20:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support this, userfy. It is not a proper draft for a stand alone article, but is perfectly fine if considered Taku's notes on what might be developed into material for another article, or revamped. In draftspace, I think it invites others to build on it, and I don't think it is a foundation for that. I note that others disagree, arguing that there are no such rules for draftspace, but I think there should be such rules or draftspace could turn into a low quality shadow Wikipedia. In userspace, it is strongly implied that one user, not the community, takes responsibility for it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 11 August 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.