Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Mathematics

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wcquidditch (talk | contribs) at 22:17, 29 April 2025 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Carlos_Gustavo_Rosado_Muñoz (assisted)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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:
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 delete‎. ✗plicit 04:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Gustavo Rosado Muñoz

Carlos Gustavo Rosado Muñoz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem notable, very weak sourcing with only one source. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since he died in 2013, BLP would no longer apply. Liz Read! Talk! 00:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 03:31, 7 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 keep‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 05:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Table of polyhedron dihedral angles

Table of polyhedron dihedral angles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Even though many sources support the angle of each polyhedron, I still have no clue what's the point of its existence. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t delete this article

This article is useful 2406:B400:71:B341:E821:9E94:FF91:A0F2 (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep by default, because this is a bit of a non-debate. The fact that one editor doesn't see the point of an article isn't really grounds for deletion, and the fact that someone else finds it possibly useful isn't strong grounds to keep. My feeling is that the list is apparently correct and sourced, and it's quite possible that some school kid somewhere is making polyhedron models and excited by their angles, so for the sake of them, I'm fine about the table existing in their favourite encyclopedia. Elemimele (talk) 09:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elemimele If that's the case, I could barely remodel the list anytime soon. What class of polyhedra should be included in the article? And why Platonic solids, star solids, and uniform solids are included only? Catalan solids has its own list alongside with dihedral angle. Archimedean solids? Johnson solids? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Dedhert.Jr valid point: some of the main articles already tabulate dihedral angles, but others don't. The Catalan solids article does it super-clearly. I think I'd have to downgrade my weak keep to a very weak keep on the grounds that the main articles often do have the data. This is one of those deletions where I don't feel strongly enough to argue, particularly as you have much greater knowledge of the field than I. I'm a bit inclusionist when it comes to information, and don't mind lists that duplicate-and-collate numbers also available in other lists/articles, but others may feel differently. Elemimele (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but consider at least mentioning the Dehn invariant as motivation, if not reworking/extending to a table of polyhedron Dehn invariants.
    Tables of dihedral angles for polyhedra are available from multiple sources, which goes some way towards meeting WP:NLIST. In particular, a quick WP:BEFORE search found the following two books:
    • Pugh, Anthony (1976). Polyhedra: A Visual Approach. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. ISBN 9780520322042.
    • Pearce, Peter; Pearce, Susan (1978). Polyhedra Primer. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. ISBN 9780442264963.
The existing article also answers the specific issue of What class of polyhedra should be included in the article?: the class of edge-transitive polyhedra, as polyhedra with non-equivalent edges will typically (though not always) have multiple distinct dihedral angles. Pugh (1976) tabulates dihedral angles for the Platonic polyhedra (Table 1.34), Archimedean polyhedra (Table 2.15), some facially regular prisms and antiprisms (Table 2.16), as well as their duals (Tables 4.12 and 4.13). Similarly, Pearce and Pearce (1978) tabulates dihedral angles for the Platonic polyhedra (Regular Polyhedra), Archimedean polyhedra (Semiregular Polyhedra), quasiregular polyhedra, and Catalan solids (Duals of the Semiregular Polyhedra). Out of the 13 Archimedean polyhedra, only the cuboctahedron and icosidodecahedron have uniform dihedral angles (in fact, they're isotoxal, hence are already included in the current article).
I am sympathetic to the nominator's argument that the current article provides no good rationale for why it might be useful to tabulate dihedral angles, making it seem like an indiscriminate collection of unexplained statistics (WP:NOTSTATS). In my view, the main reason why anyone would be interested in comparing dihedral angles between polyhedra is via the theory of equidecomposability initially developed to answer Hilbert's third problem: a set of polyhedra is scissors-congruent to another set of polyhedra if they have the same volume and Dehn invariant. The Dehn invariant of a polyhedron is a function of its edge lengths and dihedral angles: Dehn invariant#Examples lists dihedral angles for the five Platonic solids, using these to calculate their Dehn invariants, as well as listing Dehn invariants (without derivation) for ten of the thirteen Archimedean solids. The MathWorld page Polyhedron Dissection tabulates Dehn invariants and volumes for sets of unit equilateral polyhedra which are interdissectable; it has a somewhat different inclusion criterion for polyhedra (interdissectability rather than isotoxality), but perhaps lends further weight to the argument that a more useful framing for this WP article might be in terms of dissection invariants for polyhedra.
If we decided to move to this framing, expanding the scope of the article from isotoxal polyhedra to the full set covered by Pugh (1976) or Pearce and Pearce (1978) might be worth considering. One caveat is that Conway, J. H.; Radin, C.; Sadun, L. (1999), "On angles whose squared trigonometric functions are rational", Discrete and Computational Geometry, 22 (3): 321–332, arXiv:math-ph/9812019, doi:10.1007/PL00009463, MR 1706614, S2CID 563915, Table 3, p. 331. only covers Dehn invariants for the non-snub Archimedean polyhedra of edge lengths 1, so we might need to dig up another reference to cover the rest of these polyhedra.
A less dramatic change (that might be less disruptive / work better in practice) might be to keep the current scope but mention the Dehn invariant as motivation. E.g. the supplementary dihedral angles of tetrahedra and octahedra explain why it's possible to fill space with them (as the tetrahedral-octahedral honeycomb). I'd be keen to hear others' thoughts on these suggestions. Preimage (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I retract my nomination for now. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 10:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was going to write a thing but everything I would have said is subsumed by Preimage's compelling comment. --JBL (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although I wasn't able to fully follow them, Preimage gave very good reasons. Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 01:18, 7 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 Keep‎ (non-admin closure) VortexPhantom🔥 (talk) 08:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Null sign

Null sign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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]
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 [3], 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 [4], 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.

Mathematics proposed deletions

Mathematics miscellany for deletion

Mathematics redirects for discussion

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Mathematics&oldid=1288020543"