Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nori motive

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

The result was keep‎. Further discussion regarding a merge can be discussed on the article's talk page. ✗plicit 14:22, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nori motive

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Um, we have a textbook called "Periods and Nori motives" in addition to several other papers discussing the topic, independent of Nori (see also https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Nori%2Bmotive) So, the notability here seems clear. -- Taku (talk) 12:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: plenty of coverage in academic source. Just give a quick look to Google Scholar and Google Books. MarioGom (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep criterion 3 - no justification has been provided for why the citations present in the article do not allow it to meet WP:GNG. Stockhausenfan (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is certainly a notable notion but the article as currently written is useless and in particular 80% of the sources are not cited in the maintext. At this point i see no reason not to make this a redirect to a more general page on motives until somebody who is able to write a proper page on this takes it over. jraimbau (talk) 07:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly it's too short. But the point of a stub is that it can be developed further. For example, it's not easy to start a new page for anonymous users so just having a bare minimum page would make it much easier for them to provide more materials. The redirect is unhelpful since a general page on motives doesn't have any info on Nori motives. -- Taku (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So? Merge the content into the more general page and make it a redirect. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a good idea as the topic seems too specialized (if notable); a general page on motives should discuss motives in general, while a page like this can discuss more specific constructions. Details on the construction of Nori motives would be too distracted in the general page (and there is also a risk of undue weight if the general page spends too much space for Nori motives). -- Taku (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on the level of detail merged into the general article. Do we have a relevant article on motives? - UtherSRG (talk) 13:49, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, currently this article is very short so the merger is possible but in the future, we want to discuss a detailed construction of Nori motivies, I assume. And such a discussion wouldn't quite fit well into the "motive" article; too distracting and also there is an issue of undue weight. In Wikipedia, we often leave detailed constructions or proofs to specialized articles. (So it makes sense to have both general and specialized articles.) Taku (talk) 14:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The current article is 2 sentences. It would easily be a small section or part of a section in the proffered article. As such, I think merge to motive (algebraic geometry) is an acceptable WP:ATD. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
??? Regardless of the length, of course, a merger is an option in any AfD. The question is whether the topic is notable enough for a standalone article, or whether the article has some serious issues that are hard to fix. Depending on them, a merger may or may not be a good idea. Taku (talk) 04:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I stated it explicitly as I'm the nominator. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:09, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Thanks (it now made sense). Taku (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2025 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.