Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Main theorem of elimination theory

 __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: keep. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Main theorem of elimination theory


Up for G13. No work on this since Aug 2014 except to reverse an attempt to redirect it. Redirects help interested users find the draft from the related page "what links here" and remove the incompete effort from reader view, being mirrored etc. Legacypac (talk) 09:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is an important theorem in mathematics. In Wikipedia, we prefer to have a standalone article for each important theorem (whence the draft article). I cannot find any exception in this case. — Taku (talk) 09:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I see it's your draft, if you are planning to continue working on it, sourcing it and moving it to mainspace, I don't have any objections. But articles usually don't use language like "We need to show that" - the current state of the draft looks more like personal notes - are you planning to create an article out of this? Seraphim System  ( talk ) 09:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I intend to work on it (if not today); I also have a good track record of completing the drafts (as the majority of the drafts started by me are now in the mainspace). About royal we: many math articles in the mainspace use “we”, especially in the proofs; the employment of this writing style *does not mean* the draft is a personal note. If asked, I’m more than willing to add contexts and references (I started with the proof, since that’s the gist of the article). — Taku (talk) 09:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * : Although there is such a thing as overuse of figures of speech involving the word "we", it must be recognized that standard figures of speech are not to be taken literally. Look at this manual page: "The author's we found in scientific writing: We are thus led also to a definition of 'time' in physics (Albert Einstein); Throughout this proof we assume that the function &fnof; is uniformly continuous. Often rephrasing using the passive voice is preferable:[q] Throughout this proof it is assumed that the function &fnof; is uniformly continuous." I used to find math articles labeled as looking like a "personal reflection or essay" and I was baffled by that tag since I couldn't find anything in the article that looked that way to me. It turned out someone was going around applying that tag to every article that used the word "we" without regard to whether it was meant literally. Its use in such sentences as "Throughout this proof we assume that the function &fnof; is uniformly continuous." is standard throughout the English-speaking world and usually learned in secondary school. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is true in other types of academic writing as well, "we" is often used - but MOS:WE is very clear that the tone is non-encyclopedic. If there is a consensus amongst math editors that it is ok in math articles, then I don't think templating every math article for a rewrite is going to be helpful, but I generally agree with the guideline that the passive voice would be preferable for consistency with the style of Wikipedia articles throughout the encyclopedia, but this is largely a style preference and it would have be discussed by editors working on the articles. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 11:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Since the editor is still active and states that he intends to turn it into an article, I don't see any problem with keeping it. For future reference, making a few edits to it every six months is enough to save it from G13 I think, it's mostly for articles that have been abandoned by inactive accounts. Seraphim System ( talk ) 09:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm not seeing the problem here. Paul August &#9742; 20:31, 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.