Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coherency (homotopy theory)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coherency (homotopy theory)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been in the Draft namespace for some time, and has been nominated for deletion at MfD twice. The most recent discussion, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Coherency (homotopy theory) (2nd nomination), resulted in a consensus to move the article into mainspace and see if it lives through an AfD. This is a procedural AfD, so I'm not putting forth any opinion as to whether it should be kept or deleted. ‑Scottywong | [chat] || 22:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. ‑Scottywong | [chat] || 22:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Homotopy theory. Too thin, in unjustified WP:SPINOUT. Get talk page consensus before making spinouts. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Both the title and the lede sentence assert that the topic is a subtopic or derivative topic of Homotopy. Neither that article nor it’s talk page contains even the word “coherency”. Making a separate page is certainly premature, and I am arguing, bad structurism. Notability of finely sliced mathematical topics is poorly defined, Wikipedia-notability doesn’t work for it. The approach should be as I say, structuralist. Coherency is meaningless without knowledge of Homotopy. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Homotopy theory is itself only a redirect, although it's a fairly major topic in algebraic topology and certainly deserves an article (the broad topic ones are always the hardest to write though ). A homotopy is merely a specific kind of function, covered by the article there, along with some related notions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article's in somewhat rough shape, but the topic itself is notable enough for an article. Merging (as suggested above) would be an inappropriate inclusion of a fairly specific topic in a very broad article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just marked it as a stub as well. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The topic is notable (in the Wikipedia sense if my parents don’t know about it). I don’t think the merger works because this is fairly a specific topic. There are probably not featured-article-level materials to cover but are probably still enough for a modest-size article. — Taku (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You should try it. Failure to achieve the merge, with agreement to spinout, is justification for the spinout. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You mean merger? It's not something to try; for example, the section of Mac lane coherence theorem would appear very odd in homotopy theory article. The draft was not started out as a spinout anyway. Some small article on a village in Japan might be, length-wise, put in the Japan article, the result looks very odd. -- Taku (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reasonable comparison. Homotopy is not squeezed for space like Japan.

At a minimum, can you introduce a mention of coherency at Homotopy? Can you tell me what about coherency is not connected to Homotopy? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be somehow misleading (the best place to mention it at see also): just because some village exists in Japan, that doesn’t mean it deserves a section in the Japan article. Similarly, not every topic in homotopy theory deserves a section in the homotopy article.

Wikipedia currently does not have a list of homotopy theory topics; the closest would be Glossary of algebraic topology. Merging this page into it also doesn’t seem natural. It seems the most natural to discuss this topic in a separate articles, just as many other topics are discussed in separate articles. -— Taku (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: As others have observed, this is too thin to stand on it's own in my view. Merge to Homotopy any content that is unique and expand the content until it meets WP:SPINOUT criteria. Hasteur (talk) 01:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Coherency does not logically fit into the article about homotopy, so artificially sticking it there makes no sense. It would only even barely fit into an article about Homotopy theory (barely because homotopy theory is a very broad topic, while coherency is too narrow), which doesn't even exist. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you make that statement at talk:Homotopy. Are you saying Homotopy should not mention coherency? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I object to DV's kibitzing and attempting to argue that because no direct page exists as a good merge/redirect target this page should still be left alone. If homotopy theory exists as a redirect, perhaps Coherency (as a subset of homotopy theory) should live there to help raise homotopy theory to the level of it's own spinout. Hasteur (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. I read “merge with Homotopy theory, spinout the merger from Homotopy. I also note there are no valid deletion arguments, and suggest User:Scottywong close this as WP:Speedy keep #1, no valid reason for deletion. Instead, it belongs at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: With respect, I point out that Proposed mergers is open ended and (in experience with certain editors in Mathematics stubs) will remain proposed for years and then when a editor comes in to enact what seems like a low effort/hostility action of redirecting the page and leaving the previous page history, the editor will revert citing "Vandalism", Disruptive editing, Personal attacks, etc. Anything to keep "their" content from being rolled over and an anathema to the purpose of a collaberatively edited encyclopedia. Hasteur (talk) 12:59, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have returned to a higher level position that AfD should not be destroyed as a viable deletion forum by accepting difficult merge proposals. Coherency (homotopy theory) is a very thin topic, and appears to only have serious connection to one other topic, Coherency, making it obviously a derivative topic, and in my opinion prematurely spunout. Some are now arguing that Coherency (homotopy theory) can't be merged to ~~Coherency~~ Homotopy, but ~~Coherency~~ Homotopy must first be split to create ~~Coherency theory~~ Homotopy theory. That may be fair, although I think it is filibustering, presenting endless new arguments to prevent a decision. This is a misuse of AfD unless there is a valid single argument for deletion. i.e. Should this page be redirected, with an option to merge later? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I’m very confused. (1) “very thin topic”; no I disagree. I think the article already gives enough numbers of references. Also, nlab has many articles related to the matter of coherency or coherence so the topic appears to be significant enough for a stand-alone article. (2) Coherency is just a disambig page and the merger with it doesn’t work. I have never heard of “coherency theory” (and who is proposing that we start it??). For me, the article looks, whole rough, ok and I still cannot see why it needs to be a part of the other articles. —- Taku (talk) 02:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Homotopy, not Coherency. fixing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not much into specialized mathematics topics, but my impression of mathematics is that it produces many journal articles on very thin topics. Many journal articles does not imply breadth of topic. For breadth of topic, one must look for independent secondary sources citing multiple primary sources. I believe that this is a general challenge for mathematics topics, but leeway is usually allowed.

The criticism of User:TakuyaMurata's drafting, which I join, is that he does not appear to even seek consensus on related mainspace talk pages for closely related thin topics. His insistence on working in draftspace, as oppose to with others in WP:Wikiproject Mathematics, contributes to this concern. I think he crosses the WP:SPINOUT guideline. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it now makes sense :) I agree not every topic that ever appears in a journal to be considered significant enough to be treated in an independent article. But that's precisely why the article gives math (text)books as well. (Not every journal article is of equal weight and "Retiring Presidential Address" one by Mac Lane seems very significant; note Mac Lane is not your average mathematician.) There are many subtopics to this article such as homotopy coherence, or coherent homotopy category, etc. I agree they may be "thin" topics but "coherency" in homotopy theory and (higher) category theory does not seem to be a case. As I said, nlab is very similar to Wikipedia albeit specialization in math and the amount of stuff there seems to suggest there are enough materials to cover in Wikipedia as well. Determining the topic is significant enough can be done through an AfD just like this one. --
On "seek consensus on related mainspace talk pages", because there is no need; in Wikipedia, we allow every editor (registered-and-editing-for-awhile user) to just start a new article on a new topic. Of course, some editors may then mass-generate articles on topics that are off-topics, non-notable, etc, that Wikipedia should not cover. We deal with them by talking to them or kicking out them from Wikipedia. The community consensus, as I understand, is that I am not among those. (I know the user Hasteur would want us to think otherwise though). -- Taku (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more collegiate to advertise your draft ideas on relevant talk pages. There may be no need, but it would be ideal. Surely you don't mean your drafts to look like walled gardens? I think this would be a good guideline: If your new page could be considered a spinout of any existing page, state your intentions (implicitly invite feedback) on its talk page. Ensure that this existing page includes at least one mention of the topic of the new page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean not to do "advertisement" if drafts are related to existing topics; although drafts are usually started because the topics are not covered in mainspace. I agree on "walled gardens" but again is there really such a concern? I mean which garden?? WikiProject Math is aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages; note the list contains many draft pages started by other than me. -- Taku (talk) 06:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to write a lede sentence In mathematics, specifically in homotopy theory as well as (higher) category theory, I think these two linked articles should mention the topic. Also, the lede sentence should restate the name of the topic. Style and structure issues, not reasons for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Walled gardens"? A better term is "near-orphan". I see you are de-orphaning, which is good. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, no disrespect, but that’s not quite workable in practice. It is often the case that there are too many topics in each subfield of mathematics to list; one has to ask if each topic is central to the field to mention that topic in the article on the field. I don’t think that’s the case for this one (though it makes sense to have links to this page in the “see also” section). About “Walled gardens“: that goes to the heart of the problem on the namespace that shall not be named (and will not make further comments). —- Taku (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The prohibition of mainspace articles linking to draftspace, and the blindness of mainstream content writers and editors to draftspace, are reasons why subfield spinouts should not be done in draftspace, except where there is an explicit article_talk page consensus to do so. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG. I am not convinced that a merge is necessary or the best option.4meter4 (talk) 02:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A reasonable stub, and none of the proposed merge targets look like reasonable fits. XOR'easter (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2019 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Coherency (homotopy theory)

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.