Draft:Lie algebra of an algebraic group – Restore. Closing this a few hours early, but the outcome is obvious. – -- RoySmith (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:Lie algebra of an algebraic group (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) The deletion was unnecessary. It was a redirect page but had the page history; there is no need to delete the page history (no copyright violation, etc.) Taku (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] What was the redirect to before it was deleted? If it wasn't an actual still-existing article, where _should_ it redirect to? Hobit (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] It was a draft that has recently merged with Draft:Linear algebraic group–Lie algebra correspondence. The page was then turned into a redirect page after the merger. It was not necessarily to delete the page; it has some nontrivial page history that should have been preserved. -- Taku (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] I guess my question is was the page that it was redirected to deleted or still working? The speedy criteria in question doesn't seem to apply unless it was pointing to a deleted page. Hobit (talk) 00:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] It was, as Taku says, a redirect to Draft:Linear algebraic group–Lie algebra correspondence. That was briefly a redlink at the time of deletion, as can most clearly by seen by its history. That's no reason not to restore, and there's no reason it wouldn't have been restored at WP:REFUND without the unneeded drama of bringing it here. —Cryptic 03:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. Alleged non-trivial history is worth discussing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] Restore (Overturn) per the description given by Cryptic of the content in question.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] Restore sounds like this met the CSD criteria but the history is a reason to keep it around. No objection to an MfD if someone feels strongly, but I don't see the point. Hobit (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] Restore the edit history isn't really that substantial - the first edit added 90 bytes explaining the content of the page, the next edit added a large amount of text, and then the next two edits adjusted subheadings and added another reference. However I don't see any harm in having it if the creator wants it and it doesn't meet the CSD criteria any more. Hut 8.5 21:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Draft:Lie algebra of an algebraic group – Restore. Closing this a few hours early, but the outcome is obvious. – -- RoySmith (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The deletion was unnecessary. It was a redirect page but had the page history; there is no need to delete the page history (no copyright violation, etc.) Taku (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What was the redirect to before it was deleted? If it wasn't an actual still-existing article, where _should_ it redirect to? Hobit (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It was a draft that has recently merged with Draft:Linear algebraic group–Lie algebra correspondence. The page was then turned into a redirect page after the merger. It was not necessarily to delete the page; it has some nontrivial page history that should have been preserved. -- Taku (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess my question is was the page that it was redirected to deleted or still working? The speedy criteria in question doesn't seem to apply unless it was pointing to a deleted page. Hobit (talk) 00:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - It was, as Taku says, a redirect to Draft:Linear algebraic group–Lie algebra correspondence. That was briefly a redlink at the time of deletion, as can most clearly by seen by its history. That's no reason not to restore, and there's no reason it wouldn't have been restored at WP:REFUND without the unneeded drama of bringing it here. —Cryptic 03:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Alleged non-trivial history is worth discussing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Restore (Overturn) per the description given by Cryptic of the content in question.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Restore sounds like this met the CSD criteria but the history is a reason to keep it around. No objection to an MfD if someone feels strongly, but I don't see the point. Hobit (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the edit history isn't really that substantial - the first edit added 90 bytes explaining the content of the page, the next edit added a large amount of text, and then the next two edits adjusted subheadings and added another reference. However I don't see any harm in having it if the creator wants it and it doesn't meet the CSD criteria any more. Hut 8.5 21:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Draft:GKM variety – As there is nothing to restore, there is no reason to keep this open. – — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:GKM variety (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) G13 doesn't apply. (It was not an AfC page.) Taku (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] Restored to User:TakuyaMurata/Sandbox. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] And why do you have to restore it in the user page? It is not up to you to decide where to put draft pages. -- Taku (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] Move it to where you'd like it I'd say. Hobit (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] For the record, the page has not been restored so I cannot move it anyway. I'm asking the overturn. -- Taku (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] Nothing to restore. The two revisions that were at this title are currently here and here. This comment is thoroughly unimpressive, though at least you didn't call for him to be executed. (This time.) —Cryptic 23:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] This is the deletion review. So the question is whether the deletion was right or wrong according to the policies. There is no need to make things personal. (But if we were to go down that road, the problem with this editor (RH) is that he doesn't understand we are here to build up the encyclopedia not something kind of bullying game, which he enjoy playing. The editors like those need to be expelled from the project so we can get back to the actual job of building the encyclopedia. I regret the use of the colorful language but my point is valid as ever.) -- Taku (talk) 00:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] Refer User:TakuyaMurata and User:RHaworth to WP:DR. There is clearly a problem with communication, including the communication that is supposed to precede WP:DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] Ok, looks like RHaworth merged a number of pages into the same sandbox. My edit listing it for deletion is at here (just so everyone know what I was looking at it). It was since redirected by said editor. No idea whether this should be restored to let the MFD continue or not. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] I'm "hoping" there is just a lot of confusion going on here. See notes at the MfD. For the record I was only procedurally closing the MfD as the actions had already been performed by RHaworth (talk · contribs). once that went back and forth I left a note for RHaworth to please finalize the MfD if he had already resolved this using speedy deletion and speedy restoration processes. I have no idea why @TakuyaMurata: redirected the entire content if he wanted to maintain it. It appears that Taku want's this page put back in Draft: space; and with the user sandbox content being more expansive then the original nomination I think the best way to go now is: Abort the MfD in process Allow Taku to recreate Draft:GKM variety using any of their content from User:TakuyaMurata/Sandbox without it being a move-wheel-war. Recreate is preferable to the mess of history splits/moves/restores that would otherwise be needed, and they are the only contributor Allow Ricky81682 (talk · contribs) or anyone else to nominate the page for MfD again, should they have a bona fide concern about the page. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] Comment: There's only two edits that relates to this page and they are back to back. The remaining sandbox is from 2012 and is obviously separate. It would not be difficult to separate. There's a small discussion at User_talk:TakuyaMurata#Draft related to Draft:Linear algebraic group–Lie algebra correspondence that may give some insight. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] I think now I understand what I was missing. The draft page was buried into the page history of User:TakuyaMurata/Sandbox; that's why I couldn't find the page. Yes, I redirected the Sandbox that had "completely unrelated content" I no longer needed. I'm very puzzled why we can just recreate the page (it was a very short page with the fairly trivial page history.) -- Taku (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] Nothing to restore, nothing for DRV to do. User:TakuyaMurata is counselled not to be so precious about draft pages and to work on them more than once every other year rather than leaving them to rot. User:RHaworth is counselled to apply G13 only to actual AFC pages, rather than pages in the Draft namespace, which there is no consensus to do. User:Ricky81682 is counselled to carry on nominating MFDs on a case by case basis but to be careful not to risk being seen as focused on the creations of a single user. Stifle (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] Because Wikipedia is your website, I have to work on the draft pages according to your schedule? There is no deadline for drafts and there is no requirement for the sort of performance reviews from time to time. -- Taku (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] Why do you create one-line drafts and never do anything with them? What's that accomplishing? Stifle (talk) 09:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] @Stifle: Taku's "creations" in draft space have been noted several times and have been a point of contention for several users (including myself). Taku created numerous sub-stub draft pages on esoteric mathematic topics in what I characterize as a "Draftspace Title Land Grab" and then proceeeded to abandon the works. Because these creations are the oldest unedited pages, Taku is being called before MFD and other forms of deletion to determine how to resolve the title grab. I would also note that Taku has been previously indefinitely blocked for emotional and excessive reactions to their Draft space pages being deleted. I would also note that Taku has claimed that because they are in school, the earliest they could make any attempt at cleaning up the above noted issues was sometime in November. Hasteur (talk) 12:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] Since it is clearly unproductive to keep having the same dispute, I have started a RfC at Wikipedia talk:Drafts. I think what we need is the agreement of the standard for draft articles. I don't believe for example draft articles must be stubs; if they are stubs, then they don't need to be in the draft namespace; they can be moved to the main namespace. -- Taku (talk) 03:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] What did I do here? I'll agree with Stifle, except well with admonishing me. I do focus on single users but those are only for permabanned or vanished users. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Draft:GKM variety – As there is nothing to restore, there is no reason to keep this open. – — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

G13 doesn't apply. (It was not an AfC page.) Taku (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restored to User:TakuyaMurata/Sandbox. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- And why do you have to restore it in the user page? It is not up to you to decide where to put draft pages. -- Taku (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Move it to where you'd like it I'd say. Hobit (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - For the record, the page has not been restored so I cannot move it anyway. I'm asking the overturn. -- Taku (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to restore. The two revisions that were at this title are currently here and here.
This comment is thoroughly unimpressive, though at least you didn't call for him to be executed. (This time.) —Cryptic 23:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the deletion review. So the question is whether the deletion was right or wrong according to the policies. There is no need to make things personal. (But if we were to go down that road, the problem with this editor (RH) is that he doesn't understand we are here to build up the encyclopedia not something kind of bullying game, which he enjoy playing. The editors like those need to be expelled from the project so we can get back to the actual job of building the encyclopedia. I regret the use of the colorful language but my point is valid as ever.) -- Taku (talk) 00:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Refer User:TakuyaMurata and User:RHaworth to WP:DR. There is clearly a problem with communication, including the communication that is supposed to precede WP:DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, looks like RHaworth merged a number of pages into the same sandbox. My edit listing it for deletion is at here (just so everyone know what I was looking at it). It was since redirected by said editor. No idea whether this should be restored to let the MFD continue or not. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm "hoping" there is just a lot of confusion going on here. See notes at the MfD. For the record I was only procedurally closing the MfD as the actions had already been performed by RHaworth (talk · contribs). once that went back and forth I left a note for RHaworth to please finalize the MfD if he had already resolved this using speedy deletion and speedy restoration processes. I have no idea why @TakuyaMurata: redirected the entire content if he wanted to maintain it. It appears that Taku want's this page put back in Draft: space; and with the user sandbox content being more expansive then the original nomination I think the best way to go now is:
1. Abort the MfD in process
2. Allow Taku to recreate Draft:GKM variety using any of their content from User:TakuyaMurata/Sandbox without it being a move-wheel-war.
  Recreate is preferable to the mess of history splits/moves/restores that would otherwise be needed, and they are the only contributor
3. Allow Ricky81682 (talk · contribs) or anyone else to nominate the page for MfD again, should they have a bona fide concern about the page.
— xaosflux ^Talk 03:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's only two edits that relates to this page and they are back to back. The remaining sandbox is from 2012 and is obviously separate. It would not be difficult to separate. There's a small discussion at User_talk:TakuyaMurata#Draft related to Draft:Linear algebraic group–Lie algebra correspondence that may give some insight. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think now I understand what I was missing. The draft page was buried into the page history of User:TakuyaMurata/Sandbox; that's why I couldn't find the page. Yes, I redirected the Sandbox that had "completely unrelated content" I no longer needed. I'm very puzzled why we can just recreate the page (it was a very short page with the fairly trivial page history.) -- Taku (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to restore, nothing for DRV to do. User:TakuyaMurata is counselled not to be so precious about draft pages and to work on them more than once every other year rather than leaving them to rot. User:RHaworth is counselled to apply G13 only to actual AFC pages, rather than pages in the Draft namespace, which there is no consensus to do. User:Ricky81682 is counselled to carry on nominating MFDs on a case by case basis but to be careful not to risk being seen as focused on the creations of a single user. Stifle (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Because Wikipedia is your website, I have to work on the draft pages according to your schedule? There is no deadline for drafts and there is no requirement for the sort of performance reviews from time to time. -- Taku (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why do you create one-line drafts and never do anything with them? What's that accomplishing? Stifle (talk) 09:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Stifle: Taku's "creations" in draft space have been noted several times and have been a point of contention for several users (including myself). Taku created numerous sub-stub draft pages on esoteric mathematic topics in what I characterize as a "Draftspace Title Land Grab" and then proceeeded to abandon the works. Because these creations are the oldest unedited pages, Taku is being called before MFD and other forms of deletion to determine how to resolve the title grab. I would also note that Taku has been previously indefinitely blocked for emotional and excessive reactions to their Draft space pages being deleted. I would also note that Taku has claimed that because they are in school, the earliest they could make any attempt at cleaning up the above noted issues was sometime in November. Hasteur (talk) 12:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Since it is clearly unproductive to keep having the same dispute, I have started a RfC at Wikipedia talk:Drafts. I think what we need is the agreement of the standard for draft articles. I don't believe for example draft articles must be stubs; if they are stubs, then they don't need to be in the draft namespace; they can be moved to the main namespace. -- Taku (talk) 03:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What did I do here? I'll agree with Stifle, except well with admonishing me. I do focus on single users but those are only for permabanned or vanished users. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.