Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Complex Exponentiation

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

The result of the discussion was:  delete. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 07:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Complex Exponentiation

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

This page semms like they was trying to create a complex exponential function, and the exponential function already exists. With reference to Exponentiation, the function handled on this page is $$f(z_1,z_2)={z_1}^{z_2}$$ Therefore WP:TNT. SilverMatsu (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a WP:Content fork of Exponential function, which does not contain any new information. D.Lazard (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as a duplicate article. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 20:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment how about transfer the text into the existing article if possible? User:Ahthga YramTalk with me! I want to change my name! 04:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Everything in the draft is already in the existing article. So there is nothing to transfer. This does not mean that Exponential function cannot be improved, but the draft is of no help for that. D.Lazard (talk) 08:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Exponentiation. Redirects are cheap, and sometimes useful.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reply. The exponential function hat note says;--SilverMatsu (talk) 01:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The hatnote and the lead of Exponential function do not reflect the content of the article, which is almost exclusively about $$e^x.$$ So, they must be changed. For redirecting, the best target is clearly Exponential function, but redirecting a draft seems nonsensical. So, I keep my !vote of delete. D.Lazard (talk) 08:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply and clarification of the hat note. Also, I forgot to make it clear that I haven't changed the vote for deletion.--SilverMatsu (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete No point in redirecting a draft to an article, particularly when the draft contains no new information. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as duplicated. —  csc -1 14:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.