This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hasteur (talk | contribs) at 01:55, 28 September 2019 (→Coherency (homotopy theory): Expressing displeasure at editor's attempt to modify my intent). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:55, 28 September 2019 by Hasteur (talk | contribs) (→Coherency (homotopy theory): Expressing displeasure at editor's attempt to modify my intent)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Coherency (homotopy theory)
New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- How to contribute
- Introduction to deletion process
- Guide to deletion (glossary)
- Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
- Coherency (homotopy theory) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (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, Misplaced Pages: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| || 22:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. ‑Scottywong| || 22:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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, Misplaced Pages-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)
- 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)
- 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
- 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)
- I just marked it as a stub as well. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- Keep: The topic is notable (in the Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Can you make that statement at talk:Homotopy. Are you saying Homotopy should not mention coherency? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)