Draft talk:Algebraic General Topology

I am the author of the book.

Replacing the page with a redirect to Algebraic topology is a mistake, as despite of name similarities algebraic general topology is largely unrelated to algebraic topology.


 * You’re right; general topology is a more correct target (I have corrected the redirect). I still don’t think the draft makes sense as a Wikipedia article; at least I can’t find evidence that the the theory described here is widely accepted in the mainstream mathematics. — Taku (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Which rule of Wikipedia tells that a theory needs to be "widely accepted" to be notable? On the contrary Wikipedia rules are clear that a subject is notable, if it is cited at least twice. I have enough citations. Why do most Wikipedia editors follow despisement to "not widely accepted" instead of Wikipedia official rules? --VictorPorton (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The quality of the citations matter: if we were to cover a topic like this, it need be covered in multiple standard textbooks, monographs or some major papers. -- Taku (talk) 02:48, 25 December 2019 (UTC)