Deletion of Multiplicative calculus

Comment: Despite of a large number of references, this article is not reliably sourced (see eliable sources). All references are rimary sources and most of them are not really published. Although, this is an article of mathematical analysis, I have not found in the reference list any article that has been published in a non-predatory journal that uses to publish articles in this area. The lack of econdary sources strongly suggests that the article does not satisfy the otability criteria. In fact, multiplicative calculus is a ringe theory that is not recognized in the main stream of mathematics. Moreover, this is a trivial theory in the following sense. The exponential and the logarithm define an isomorphism between the additive group of the reals and the multiplicative group of positive reals. The multiplicative calculus is simply the transfer through this isomorphism of some concepts of calculus that use the additive structure of the reals. It follows that ''every'' theorem of multiplicative calculus is a corollary of the corresponding theorem of usual calculus (this is what I mean by a ''trivial'' theory
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Redirect (WP:R||WP:P||WP: S||WP:N||WP:F)

Comment: This appears to be a frequent reinvention. Review {{MR|2356052}} makes clear that this is just a disguised version of the standard calculus. Review {{MR|2724186}} points out that it is the same as the "Non-Newtonian calculus" of a 1972 book by that title, which MR didn't even bother to review. MR also didn't bother to review doi:10.1080/10511979908965937 in a mathematics education journal, reinventing the same wheel (nor did zbMATH review it). {{MR|2864779}} is a negative review of an attempt to show that this formalism is useful for differential equations; the reviewer disagrees. I might find it acceptable to have an article that points out that exp/log can be used to translate everything in the usual calculus into this form, and that reviews the history of reinvention of this not-very-deep concept, but that's not what we have here. Instead we have a lot of dancing around the point that this is all trivial, more or less as the first review I linked states. I think  applies: it might be possible to have something here, but not this
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: I believe the article is of note, but requires very significant cleanup, which I am willing to do. I believe the article overestimates the use and notability of Non-Newtonian Calculus due to bias. The user {{U|Smithpith}} is likely personally connected to the author of several books on NNC, as a quick google search shows smithpith is the publicly available email of M. Grossman. However, I believe that due to the interest in the research community in the most recent decade, the subject is of note. The subject is not notable enough note to merit a page of nearly this length or grandeur, but it has been used in educational and research contexts enough to merit an article. For instance, I propose deleting the sections on the General Theory of Non-Newtonian Calculus and pruning the Reception section. This is because I agree with the majority of previous commenters who believe that NNC is not significant enough to be notable to Wikipedia as its own mathematical branch, and I believe that the Reception page is repetitive and oversized to the point of illegibility. I wrote the majority of the History section, which I hope to improve, and plan to clean up the rest of the article. This should be in accordance with guidance on  as {{u|XOR&#39;easter}} suggests
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)