Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Cyclic algebra

 __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: Mainspace. Great, move to main it is! &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Cyclic algebra


Math page of notes up for G13 again. No substantive work done since 2014. Delete or restore the redirect until someone is willing to work on this. Legacypac (talk) 08:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per Legacypac - it hasn't been worked on since 2014, so unless someone states an intention to resume work on this in the future, I think it is fair to delete at this point. Seraphim System ( talk ) 08:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: Well, this is a notable topic. Also, as far as I can tell, the topic is not covered in the mainspace. What is needed to find a good reference (there is a ref that I don’t like) — Taku (talk) 09:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Even a poor reference would be better than no reference in this case, I think (and adding it to the draft would make the draft less stale). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That’s true; so I have added one. The coverage in the ref is only cursory so we need some more substantial ref (Maybe Weil’s basic number theory has a good discussion; I will check.) — Taku (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm, we have a section on "cyclic algebra" in Factor system. Should that be expanded before splitting off a new article? XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok. Yes the definition appears there but I don't think the article is the best place for the discussions of say structure results of cyclic algebra on its own right; (see also for additional possible references and contexts). The present draft, as quite drafty as it is, doesn't already fits neatly into factor system.  -- Taku (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Besides the factor system article itself looks a bit problematic; it focuses too much on auxiliary topics like crossed product algebra, which also deserves its own article. I myself missed the factor article since it is not a natural place to find the discussion of a cyclic algebra (notice, in the stackexchange thread, factor system never comes up); this is the issue ultimately need to be fixed by having an article on cyclic algebra. -- Taku (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Scratch what I said about the ref: I found a good ref (one mentioned in the stackexchange thread). -- Taku (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The "example" section is obviously incomplete, so it's not ready for main space yet, but it doesn't look far from being a decent stub. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Move to main space &mdash; I cut out the "example" section, and what remains is a respectable stub. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If this had been created in the main space, in its current state, it would be a perfectly acceptable stub. It has two sources. So we should just move it to the main space now and let others work on it when they want. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Move to main space as is. Paul August &#9742; 00:39, 20 February 2018 (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.