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 Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Nominator clearly doesn't understand deletion policy; any errors in the article can easily be fixed without deletion coming into play. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supercompact space (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I am writing a report on why the article on Supercompact space should be deleted. First of all, this article states 8 facts, with some 100 references or so. Just delete the article. If this article is so important, then why don't you prove it by giving names of people who actually research this topic. No one does. Also, see the following five small reasons:

. Paracompactness and compactness ARE IMPORTANT topics and that is why no one has challenged them. However, supercompactness is not nearly as important and shouldn't be on an encyclopaedia such as this one.

. This page has hardly anything. It has just stated facts. There are only a few points written on this page. It is a useless stub.

. There is no point in using a WHOLE page to talk abou supercompactness. This article should be written under Alexander's Subbase Theorem. It has hardly any information.

. There is someone who keeps removing this sign for speedy deletion and gives no reasons why he does this. Could an administrator please see that he stops?

Is supercompactness worthy of study? Was it a concept, so important that mathematicians were dumbstruck by it as soon as it was defined? The "Nagata-Smirnov Theorem" article is a good example of an article which shouldn't be deleted since it is extremely important. Is supercompactness even as important as the definition of a point (such as a point in R^2)? I may seem to be exaggerating but I am strong on my word. I understand that some people (such as "Oded"), have not been against me just for the sake of it. Others have said that this article shouldn't be deleted and given no reason to back this up. I am going to report this article to an administrator. Some articles that are extremely important have no references given to them (there are heaps of such articles in mathematics). Why do people waste their time give 800 references to such a negligible article? Please answer this.

In conclusion, this article is useless, and ineffective. It provides no applications in other elements of point-set topology and has only a few facts. This article is like wasting one whole piece of paper just for writing a single word. Someone should delete it. If not, I will. Topology Expert (talk) 09:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Topo, you sound like a new user, so I recommend you read over the Wikipedia deletion guidelines. I recommend reading WP:AFD and WP:DELETE. A few points:

1. Only admins can delete articles.
2. Unless this article has been deleted by an administrator before, it is NOT a candidate for speedy deletion. See WP:SPEEDY for speedy deletion criteria.
3. A Google Scholar Search turns up over six hundred hits, meaning that this topic has been widely covered by scholarly sources. This strongly suggests notability--see WP:N.
4. "Too many references" is an argument for cleanup, not deletion.
5. Wikipedia covers many very mundane mathematical topics.
6. "I don't like the way the article is written" is not an argument for deletion but an argument for rewriting.

TallNapoleon (talk) 10:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it meets all of our guidelines and policies and seems like a notable topic. I agree with Napoleon here; 'Topology Expert', you might like to take it to heart :) -- Naerii 10:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec) Comment I think there are two reasons your speedy-deletion tag was getting removed. Firstly, you were replacing the article with the template, rather than putting it at the top of the article, as dictated by WP:Speedy Deletion#Deletion_templates. Secondly, the SD template you used was ((db-repost)), which is for pages that were previously deleted and have been recreated. The deletion logs of the page in question show that this is not the case, you so probably meant to use a different SD template. I've removed the SD template again: now that this AfD has been opened having both is redundant. Olaf Davis | Talk 10:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That said, my vote is to Keep. The nominator says: "If this article is so important, then why don't you prove it by giving names of people who actually research this topic." Isn't that accomplished by the copious list of references? "Was it a concept, so important that mathematicians were dumbstruck by it as soon as it was defined?" Probably not, but that's not the criterion for notability that Wikipedia uses. Since the topic appears in many secondary sources as shown by the references, it seems to me to meet the notability guideline."Why do people waste their time give 800 references to such a negligible article?" The article may have more references that is necessary, but that's a good reason to remove redundant ones, not to delete the whole article. Olaf Davis | Talk 10:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec) Keep. I see no valid reason for deletion; the sources provided at least appear to demonstrate verifiability and notability. Topology Expert, you seem to be contributing earnestly and in good faith; I'll try to answer each of your objections to the article.

• "...this article states 8 facts, with some 100 references or so." Scarcity of facts in an article is not a reason for deletion, but rather for improvement and expansion. Furthermore, reliable, secondary references are in no way a detriment to an article; on the contrary, they demonstrate its notability--see WP:RS and WP:N. (Now, I admit that I am unable to access most of the references because they are in print, and I doubt that I would be able to understand them because they are probably written in mathematical jargon. If you believe that the sources are not independent of the subject, are not reliable, or do not back up the claims in the article, then by all means fix them.)
• "If this article is so important, then why don't you prove it by giving names of people who actually research this topic[?]" I am under the impression that this is accomplished by the inclusion of the thirteen references on the page. Again, if you believe otherwise, feel free to object to specific sources on the article's Talk page.
• "...supercompactness is not nearly as important and shouldn't be on an encyclopaedia such as this one." We are not here to make editorial judgments about what ought to be in an encyclopedia; that is far too subjective for any consensus about it ever to form. Instead, we have our notability policy; we let others determine whether something is important by writing about it.
• "There is no point in using a WHOLE page to talk abou[t] supercompactness. This article should be written under Alexander's Subbase Theorem." In that case, you should propose a merge to Alexander's subbase theorem (which does not yet exist) on the article's Talk page; this is not the appropriate forum for that.

• Edit. It appears that, while Alexander's subbase theorem doesn't exist, Alexander subbase theorem does. My apologies. AnturiaethwrTalk 16:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "There is someone who keeps removing this sign for speedy deletion and gives no reasons why he does this." The reason is that this article is not a candidate for speedy deletion. In this case, you are claiming that the page should be deleted because it is a re-creation of deleted material with no substantial changes; I see no evidence that this material has ever been deleted. (For reference, the guidelines to determine whether an article can be speedily deleted are at WP:CSD.)
• "Some articles that are extremely important have no references given to them (there are heaps of such articles in mathematics). Why do people waste their time give 800 references to such a negligible article? Please answer this." This argument is known as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and is generally recognized as invalid; the quality of other articles does not affect that of this one. If deserving articles lack references, then add them. As to why people add thirteen references to an article on an obscure topic: well, they're probably interested in it and feel that it can and should be properly sourced.
• "In conclusion, this article is useless, and ineffective." The argument that an article is "useless" is, understandably, called WP:USELESS; because of its subjectivity (useless to whom, and under what circumstances?), it is generally recognized as invalid. If it is "ineffective" (I take that to mean "ineffective in communicating its point," as that is the meaning of the word with which I am most familiar), then it should be fixed, not deleted.

I hope we've answered all of your objections. AnturiaethwrTalk 11:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• P.S. Sorry for the redundancies; that's what happens in edit conflicts, I suppose. AnturiaethwrTalk 11:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Well-referenced, apparently notable enough concept in mathematics. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (note: I am an involved editor). User:Topology Expert made it clear from the very beginning that he/she wanted to delete the article (see Talk:Supercompact space). The initial reason offered for deletion was that there were no references. Editors were told that if they could find one book which studies supercompactness, then User:Topology Expert would relent. Now two books on supercompactness have been provided. In addition, there are over a dozen papers in high caliber mathematics journals like the Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society. Now one of the issues User:Topology Expert is bringing into this AfD is the overabundance of references. I agree that the reference list be trimmed a bit, I must also observe that these conflicting demands are quite unreasonable. I vote keep, since the article meets any reasonable notability guideline: those of Wikipedia, as well as those initially set forth by User:Topology Expert. silly rabbit (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notability established by sources, even if the nominator doesn't like it for whatever reason, and is having a split personality event about dealing with it, which makes it difficult to assume good faith. A request for extension immediately precedes the speedy-deletion tagging, for example. --Dhartung | Talk 16:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notability is certainly established as of current version of the article. I would go as far as to suggest closing this AfD per WP:SNOW.  Frank  |  talk  16:38, 8 May 2008 (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.