Draft:Hopf algebra of a graph ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Not a test page. Taku ( talk) 22:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Restore. This was deleted under WP:G2 (test page), which seems like a stretch to me. But, more to the point, it's in draft space. As an article, it's a disaster, but the whole point of draft space is it gives really bad articles a chance to develop. I've tempundeleted the page for review. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC) reply

I would have no objection to userfying it, per SmokeyJoe. -- RoySmith (talk) 10:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC) stuck per my longer comment below. reply

• Restore as per RoySmith above. I couldn't put it better. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 00:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• I sure looks like a a couple test edits of formatting a ref. How little content does a page need to qualify as a test exactly? It is a link to a PDF and 8 words. There is no actual meaningful content about what the topic even is about. It was also evidently abandoned. If someone wants to work on it, I've got no objection to undeletion. Legacypac ( talk) 01:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC) reply

I think of test edits as being from somebody who has never used a wiki before and is trying to figure out how this all works. Maybe this is early notes for a possible future article, but it's not a test.

The author of this has over 60k edits, spanning fifteen years, and an extensive history creating articles in the field of advanced mathematics. They have earned the benefit of the doubt when it comes to creating new articles. Looking a bit deeper, if I search draft space for hopf, I find a number of drafts on the subject by this author. Some of them ( Draft:Graded Hopf algebra, for example) are equally short. Others, such as Draft:Linear algebraic group–Lie algebra correspondence are detailed, well-written, and well-sourced articles. More to the point, if you look at the first revision of that draft, it's a single word (and mis-spelled at that). One might look at that revision and WP:CSD it. And if they had done that, we would have lost the seed of a valuable, well-written draft on an important topic.

I don't see anything in Wikipedia:Drafts which says that early notes for articles you're thinking about need to go in your user space, and you only get to use draft space once your article has reached some threshold of quality. Draft is there to incubate articles, and this author has a long history of using it for exactly that, with the result being many valuable contributions to the encyclopedia. I'll gladly trade in most of the crap we have in mainspace about meaningless contemporary drivel for a one-line draft about a mathematic topic (which I can barely understand) by a long-time contributor with a history of many valuable contributions. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC) reply

I disagree with the notion that test edits are "from somebody who was never used a wiki before and is trying to figure out how this all works". I have a fair number of edits yet when I look at my sandbox, I see several tests — one checking out a new functionality relate to ISBN citations, and coincidentally, a test to see how including a PDF in a reference works. Just because one has been earned around a while doesn't mean one automatically knows exactly how to do everything. I disagree with the implication that it can't be a test because the editor has quite a few edits.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 23:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC) reply

The editor in question opened this DRV by stating that it was not a test. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC) reply

You missed my point, which may well my fault for not stating it clearly. I'm happy to accept that the creator didn't created as a test page. I'm responding to your comment, which expresses surprise that it could be construed as a test page. I thought it looked exactly like a test page. It is almost identical to tests I've created recently. I'm fine with it being restored, but I think the tagging and deletion were perfectly proper.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 23:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply

You may also have missed my point, which in turn may well be my fault for also not stating it clearly :-) I agree with you that, at first blush, this looks like a test, so I'm not concerned that it was erroneously tagged as such. What does concern me is that once the author stated that they wanted it back and that it was not a test, that there is still discussion. On the other hand, this really never should have reached DRV. What should have happened was the author should have contacted the deleting admin, stated that the draft was not a test, was useful to them, and requested it be restored. And in response, the deleting admin should have immediately corrected the mistake by restoring it. A trivial error would have been quickly corrected sans drama, everybody would have been happy, and writing the encyclopedia would have gone on. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Undelete and userfy. Not a test page, but neither is it a page to work collaboratively with others. Not with that reference. Surely it is of meaning only to User:TakuyaMurata, and as such it belongs in his userspace, nowhere else. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and restore to draftspace Not an unambiguous test edit, and CSD criteria are to be interpreted strictly. I'll note that the tagger has been dragged to ArbCom for overzealous draftspace cleanup... Jclemens ( talk) 18:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC) reply

And I'll note that making personal attacks on me in DRV over a declined ArbCom case is not appropriate. WP:NOTNOTHERE calls out my work of cleanup as necessary and valuable. Legacypac ( talk) 02:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment Look to me exactly like someone testing out how to create a reference in which the target is a PDF. Our software has changed and improved the way references are handled over the last year or so and I know I've used my sandbox to test out some of these changes. It's obviously not an article, as it has no substantive content. I'm not familiar with the taggers history, and while I can imagine that others might see it as something other than a test that seems like a perfectly plausible interpretation to me. That said, I have no objection to it being restored, but I trust the editor is going to work on it and develop it into something, not leave it as is.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 23:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, yet another of Taku's fire and forget draft substubs. Stifle ( talk) 10:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC) reply

And what harm does that do? It's not in mainspace, so it doesn't get indexed, so it doesn't clutter up anybody's search results. It's not taking up any non-trivial amount of resources (and, even if it were, deleting it doesn't reclaim anything). It's not promotional, or a copyvio, or hate speech, or any of those bad things which need to be actively hunted down and eliminated. There's some feeling expressed here that it belongs in userspace, but I don't see what problem exists that moving it to userspace would solve. At least in draft space, if some other math-inclined editor comes along and says, I'd like to write an article about Hopf algebra. I wonder if anybody has already started on that?, having it in draft space makes it more likely to be found. I just don't get what the problem is. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC) reply

What RoySmith just said. If we're going to run a volunteer-driven project, we need to have messy space, and Draftspace should be that common working space with a bunch of trash and some treasure that can be ferreted out and added to someplace in mainspace. Jclemens ( talk) 06:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• restore It may well have been mainly for testing (don't know), but once the user asks for it back, if there are no other problems (per RoySmith), then it should be restored. Hobit ( talk) 23:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • When users ask for something back, usually it is userfied for them. I think this should be userfied, not restored to draftspace. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Eh, I guess I'm not up on draft space rules, but to me this seems like a somewhat useful start to an article (a solid, correctly formatted citation). I personally don't see a huge difference between draftspace and userspace and I prefer the user working on it getting to pick. Is there some policy/guideline that says something else? As I said, I'm not up on draftspace rules. Hobit ( talk) 19:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC) reply
    • When users ask for something back, it's generally because it was deleted in a valid AfD, which this wasn't. So there should be no reason for somebody to have to ask for it back. We should just unwind the WP:CSD and we're done. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply
      • If Taku wants it in DraftSpace, then ok. I don't think he should choose to have it in draftspace, I think he should choose to have it in his userspace. That's what I think, it is not a rule. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC) reply