Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Projective hypersurface

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 . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Projective hypersurface

Longer math stub without any refs. Deleted and refunded already 6 months back in the big G13 cleanup Legacypac (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: We already have hypersurface. But that article gives a general discussion and there is a scope for a more focused but detailed article on this specific topic. I don’t have the book with me right now but, if I remember, [1] has a whole chapter on rationality of hypersurface (so there are a lot to discuss). — Taku (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect per the discussion below. — Taku (talk) 15:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: We have the redirect Projective hypersurface to Hypersurface § Projective algebraic hypersurface, which has a more detailed content. Moreover, the lead of the draft (its only content) is too WP:TECHNICAL, as based on scheme theory, of which interested readers are not supposed to know. D.Lazard (talk) 12:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I agree the lead needs to be reworked and also the actual contents (e.g., cubic hypersurfaces) are missing. Since there are many delicate issues especially over a non-algebraically closed field, I didn’t think (still don’t think) hypersurface is the best place for such technical discussions. So, to me, there is a room for a standalone article on this topic (in addition to exciting hypersurface.) — Taku (talk) 12:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hypersurface is a short article. For the moment, it is not useful to split it in several articles. If a split should occur, this should be first between differential and algebraic hypersurfaces. If some facts about algebraic hypersurface are lacking, it would be much useful for readers to mention them in existing articles, and to wait that the corresponding text is sufficiently expanded for splitting the article. Such drafts that nobody reads (who searches draft space?) are not useful; in any case, they are much less useful than a short mention in a related article, and this allows that others may work for expanding them. D.Lazard (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with splitting into differential and algebraic ones; actually, when the draft was started, hypersurface didn’t have much discussion on the algebraic case (whence the draft). So, I can see if the plan is to expand the section for the eventual splitting (for example, I think there need to be separate sections on quadratic and cubic hypersurfaces, at least), then this draft is not needed. I have changed my vote (given that plan). —- Taku (talk) 15:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have already Quadric, which is about quadratic hypersurfaces and Cubic hypersurface that redirects to Cubic form. Both need a lot of work, but this is not a reason for starting new articles. D.Lazard (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Lazard, who has a better clue than either I do or Legacypac does. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.