Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ring with the approximation property

 __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. Move to main as soon as plausible. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Ring with the approximation property


Up for G13 again today. Redirect reversed 6 months ago. No progress on draft since August 2014. Legacypac (talk) 08:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Move to the mainspace: this is already perfectly a fine stub in the mainspace. If the notability of the topic is in question (which I highly doubt), then it can be nominated for an AfD. — Taku (talk) 08:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Promote unless there's some more general article this could be appropriately merged into. Given that the author who I presume is a subject matter expert has not suggested one, I doubt there is. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I must mention that the notion is closely related to Artin's approximation theorem; I don't think the merger works since the theorem is only about a formal power series ring. (But I can be persuaded if someone editor can make a good argument.) — Taku (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge, Redirect, and Protect Merge what reasonable content into the parent article Noetherian ring, redirect the Draft page to parent, and protect it. Though to be perfectly honest there's no real content to add.  I specifically vote against moving to mainspace, because this would not pass WP:V as there's not one cited fact that would allow this to survive.  Promoting to mainspace only to have it be Speedied, PRODed, or AFDed is a perfect example of process for process sake. Hasteur (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm confident that it can survive an AfD (given my experience of writing many similar articles in the mainspace). Do you have a specific reason for the claim that the topic is not notable (so that it will likely fail to pass an AfD if nominated)? -- Taku (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I urgently advise you to strike above as it could be a violation of your topic ban. As to your "objection" please observe I didn't say notable. AFD is not just testing Notability.  What I said (and you elected to overlook) is that because there's not one cited fact in this draft (just as there was no cited facts 6 months ago when I tried to redirect to a parent topic and you decided to object on burecratic reasons, again) there is little viability for it in mainspace. The New Page patrolers would have a field day with this if it were in main space as there's no way to know if it's made up word salad because there's no cited facts.  NPPers could forcibly redirect the page elsewhere, they could propose uncontraversial deletion, they could also nominate the article for deletion on a very similar line of arguments that we're having right now.  This belongs either as a scholarly work published outside of wikipedia or as a sub-topic of an already existing article.  In short your stub isn't viable in mainspace so you should let the redirect happen and then you can splice over whatever content could work to a mainspace parent topic. Hasteur (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Simply ignoring off-topic stuff (e.g., topic ban), do you have any good piece of evidence supporting the claim that the draft will be deleted by an AfD if nominated? This draft does not look substantially different from other similar looking articles like Popescu’s theorem (which support my argument that it has a good chance of surviving an AfD). See also XOR'easter's commebt below. -- Taku (talk) 03:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow... Fillful ignorance there's not one cited fact in this draft. Your claim regarding Popescu's therom is a "Other stuff exists" argument, and in fact I would even argue that the Popescu article would be best served by merging and redirecting to Artin approximation theorem until such time that the theorem can stand on it's own.  Thank you Taku for raising the example that so we can continue improving main space by cleaning up clearly deficient pages. Hasteur (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I ignored “not one cited fact” because this is off-topic; here we are discussing the topic’s viability as a standalone article; whether it duplicates the existing topic or it can pass the notability requirement. Also, since the question is the viability, it is perfectly reasonable and should be encouraged to look at the other stuff (since that would help ascertain whether it can pass an AfD or not.) —- Taku (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. It looks close to ready for main space. Sources exist; I haven't yet tried to find the best ones. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I've started trying to improve the state of the referencing (which, procedurally, means G13 is no longer applicable). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:54, 19 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.