Talk:Multiplicity theory

Comments[edit]

Please note that this page was moved to Article Space because a prima-facie reading suggests that there is hope for this page and was an exceedinly unedited Draft namespace page. Unfortunately there are no references at this time. I request that Prod/AFD discussions be held off for a while to allow mainspace editors to find appropriate references and citations. Hasteur (talk) 11:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that Takuya exhibits sever ownership of this article having moved it back to draftspace after it was promoted out. Mainspace helps get more eyes on it instead of the dark cavern of Draftspace. Hasteur (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 August 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved - per similar case. DrStrauss talk 17:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Multiplicity theory → Draft:Multiplicity theory – Not ready to be in the mainspace; e.g., the references should be added. Taku (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Page is reasonable for mainspace (if not perfect). As the primary author TakuyaMurata has forgotten that they gave 100% permission to release the page when they saved the work By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. Returning to Draft namespace is inappropriate and abuse of process. Hasteur (talk) 02:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support The page has been moved to the main space without being reviewed by any mathematically competent editor. As this move is clearly controversial, it should be reverted per WP:BRD, until reaching a consensus. Moreover, if this page would be left in the main space, its name should be changed to Multiplicity of a module, as the present title is probably WP:OR (at least uncommon). In fact, when "theory" is used when talking of this subject, it is in the phrase "intersection theory". D.Lazard (talk) 07:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – "Multiplicity of a module" is a much better title than "Multiplicity theory". XOR'easter (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue Doesn't this belong at AFD instead? Ppp ery 19:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: This is because the page's author labors under the wildly illogical position that Draft namespace should retain all pages every concieved of until such time that the page creator thinks it's ready for mainspace. Author resists any attempt to move the page closer to mainspace and also resists attempts to move it into their user space. Page was considered as part of "Draft namespace pages that are not tracked by AFC that have also not recieved a edit in over 6 months". In the case of this page it had not been edited prior to moving to the article namespace in May 18th of 2015. The page was promoted to mainspace on August 25th 2017, over 2 years after the previous edit. Page was judged to be above the minimum viable candidate for mainspace and so was determined that it could live in mainspace. For these reasons, the page author's attempt to yank this back to draftspace is a critical failure of WP:OWN to the point that an Admin had to move protect to prevent further disruption by the author. Please feel free to see the Administrator's Noticeboard thread titled "Willfull and persistent disruption of Draft space by TakuyaMurata" Hasteur (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a long statement that doesn't address my comment at all. Regardless of the merits of this article, or the status of the creator, RM is the wrong venue for deciding whether articles are suitable for mainspace. Ppp ery 22:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the reason why this wasn't done at AFD is because there is a chance of having the page deleted there, which (from what I have been able to deduce) is something that Taku wants to avoid at all costs. Hasteur (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.