Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Mathematics

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Mathematics. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Mathematics|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Mathematics. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Mathematics/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Mathematics

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 (non-admin closure) VortexPhantom🔥 (talk) 08:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Null sign

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

(Removed prod.) This article conflates mathematical and linguistic uses of the symbol, implying that these uses are related. Two problems: First, the concepts in the two fields are quite different. The linguistic use is to represent a linguistic element that might be in that place but is not. The mathematical use is for a set that contains nothing; in particular, the set containing the empty set is different from the empty set, whereas no such distinction is evident in the linguistic use. Second, the term "null sign", in my experience, is not used for this symbol in mathematics.
It is possible (I wouldn't know) that this is in fact the standard name for this symbol in linguistics. In that case, an alternative to deletion would be to rewrite the article so as to make it entirely about linguistics, and remove the implication that the name "null sign" is used for the empty-set symbol in mathematics. Trovatore (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My understanding is that this article is about the typographic symbol. Typically typographic symbols have multiple uses in different fields and it is normal to discuss the different uses in an article about the symbol. In the Unicode standard (first ref in the article), we can verify that codepoint 2205 has the description "EMPTY SET" and represents the "null set" in math and the "null morpheme" in linguistics, both described in the article. If you look at for instance, Exclamation mark, the article has the same kind of structure. Factorials in math are unrelated to exclamations in linguistics, but they both use the symbol and are described there. I think it would be good to clarify in the article that math and linguistic uses for the symbol are different concepts and that the symbol is referred to by different names, if it is not already clear. That is a matter of editing, however, not deletion. If you have beef with the title of the article, that could also be discussed on the talk page. I don't see a policy-based rationale for deletion here. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, what would you say to merging into Ø (disambiguation)? On reflection that would address most of my concerns. --Trovatore (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  It's a little tricky because disambig pages shouldn't have expository content. This article doesn't have much but it has a little. Maybe instead merge into Ø? --Trovatore (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Mark viking that this is about the symbol and its uses. As for the name of the symbol, there is certainly some use of the term "null sign" in mathematical sources, eg a 1969 article in Quarterly of Applied Mathematics [1], and there are also texts about nursing and pharmacy that advise against using the null sign ∅ because it can be misread as a numeral, eg The Nurse, The Math, The Meds [2], p 114. I have added some sources for use in maths and linguistics. I don't think the Use in photography section belongs in this article - the symbol for diameter, according to Ø (disambiguation)#Science, technology and engineering, has a different Unicode value. I'm looking for sources which set out the two (at least) uses of the null sign. I don't think this should be merged to the DAB page, but that page should have a link to this page. It definitely shouldn't be merged to Ø, because that is specifically about the Scandinavian letter (and has a different Unicode number again). RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article is about the symbol itself rather than a specific use of it. It’s meant to cover ALL of the symbol’s uses (at least, all of the ones that are notable enough to include). Though it could be rewritten to show that the term “null sign” is not always used for it (and particularly not used in mathematics).

Against merging it to Ø per RebeccaGreen. That article is about its use as a letter in Scandinavian language rather than its use in math/linguistics. ApexParagon (talk) 03:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure I've exactly gotten my point across here. The issue is not having an article on the symbol. The issue is separating out these two or three uses of the symbol and claiming that those are the same symbol. That is unsupported WP:OR. ApexParagon mentions "the use in math/linguistics", but no evidence has been given that there is a symbol that applies to both math and linguistics, distinct from the other symbols that look the same.
I say "the issue", but there's still the issue that the name "null sign" is not used in mathematics, at least not standardly; I don't know whether it's used in linguistics. However it's true that issue could potentially be addressed by a page move, if there were anything to move it to, which I doubt there is. --Trovatore (talk) 05:07, 4 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.

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 00:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

VRR (program)

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, inclined to agree that this fails WP:NSOFT. The fact it doesn't seem to have been updated in over 15 years is one thing, but the very limited coverage even during it's active time doesn't come close to WP:SIGCOV. The closest thing I see to independent coverage is here, yet it's just a brief review of the software among various others too. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - my own search for refs came up empty. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:48, 19 April 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.

Mathematics proposed deletions

Witness set (via WP:PROD on 19 April 2025)

Mathematics miscellany for deletion

Mathematics redirects for discussion