Deletion of Future of mathematics

Comment: If notable people engage in thinking about the further development of mathematics, apparently finding this a worthwhile topic,  and their ideas are recorded in what we consider reliable sources, then it is entirely within the scope of Wikipedia to report on these ideas, just a we do for the topic Ultimate fate of the universe without invoking . The name and organization of the article may not be the most felicitous, but that is not a reason for deletion. &nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: I prodded a very early version of this article, which had little or no content. However, the article has improved hugely since then, and I am now unconvinced by the delete arguments given above.  does not apply because the article is not itself making predictions - it is about notable attempts ''by mathematicians'' to predict the future of the subject.  does not apply because the article does not try to "reach or imply a conclusion". There is good article emerging here about a particular genre of mathematical writing; I have tried to clarify this by rewriting its lead paragraph
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: I see that we have more than one editor arguing against deletion because  does not apply here. However,  was not one of the reasons given for deletion in the nomination. Nobody has given any answer to the reasons given there, apart from the author of the article saying that the article is not original research or synthesis, but not explaining or justifying that statement. Nothing that has been written above by those editors arguing for "keep" has in any way lessened the force of what is said in the nomination: various people at various times have spoken or written about what they have thought the future of mathematics may bring, but it is not sufficient that various people have said various different things and that they have been assembled together: that is ynthesis|syhtnesis. More than one editor above has said words to the effect "Several prominent mathematicians have speculated about the future of mathematics, so it must be a notable topic". However, this is not an article about "Hilbert's predictions about the future of mathematice" or "Poincaré's predictions about the future of mathematics", and nobody has put forward any evidence that ''the particular view of those predictions put forward in this article'' has received any prior coverage in reliable sources. In fact as far as I can see nobody has even claimed that that is so. Matt Westwood says that "there exists citable work". Yes, but the citations do not support ''this particular interpretation'' of how to fit together unrelated opinions of different mathematicians. Dmcq says "It is okay to write about other peoples speculations". Nobody has denied that, and that is not the point: the point is that the article is ynthesis|synthesis, with elements of |original research, and, as I have said, nobody above has even made an attempt to show that it isn't
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:S||WP:S||WP:OR)

Comment: looks like |crystalballing to me, backed by |primary sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:OR)