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 delete‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Derived ring theory

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

I'm having some trouble seeing how this meets any definition of notability (WP:N) when there are no hits when searching "Derived ring theory" in Google Scholar. Perhaps some parts of this can be merged with Ring theory and related pages. Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The term does not exist in the literature, "derived ring" is used, but infrequently and in particular contexts. Викидим (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Term is not used in relevant field. Fails WP:N. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As others have noted, the term does not seem to be used. Citations on the page that should be pointing to external sources are just cite notes making verification difficult if not impossible. As-written is also much too technical and may be too niche for an encyclopedic article. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many of our serious math articles are written without any examples, especially when they touch the category theory. As a famous saying goes, "A monad is just a monoid in the category of endofunctors, what's the problem?" (for the avoidance of doubt, I am no expert in the category theory, but can understand this half-joke). This is just the style the mathematicians prefer nowadays, with our articles reflecting the real-world (IMHO, actually a problem in the real world). This approach of brevity and total lack of introductory context causes our mathematical articles to become totally unverifiable by any person who is not a true expert in a particular field. I hope for the author to come here and explain the text to us. Викидим (talk) 02:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are 30K math articles, of which over 6K are stubs, and another 12K ranked as "start". Almost all of these fail to include appropriate ledes, introductory paragraphs, never mind worked examples and articulated expositions. Personally, over twenty years, I've "fixed" over 600 articles by adding paragraphs, examples and rewriting ledes. I've done major rewrites of several dozen articles. The content here is not something you can flick off in an afternoon; its hard work, and it takes time. This article is a fairly typical of a stub/start-class article. It will take time to bake into something a beginner could hope to grok in short order. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, the term derived ring theory is not used much in literature. But the concept, the derived version of ring theory clearly does exist; it's called under various names like derived commutative algebra. (Kind like, we have Timeline of category theory and related mathematics even though the term is not used much. Similarly, derived ring theory merely meant a derived version of ring theory.) So, it makes sense to have an article on the topic. We have derived algebraic geometry, which is closest but is the focus is different. Ring theory is already long so a spin-off like this is a good idea. -- Taku (talk) 04:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have not managed to understand the article in the 30 seconds or so I have devoted to the attempt so I can't really speak to the subject matter. But if the name is not used much in literature, we shouldn't have an article at that name. I don't think the comparison with a "timeline" article is really on-point; in that case the word "timeline" is describing the article, not the subject matter, and is not in danger of creating a neologism. Would it make sense to move to derived commutative algebra, if that term is used more? --Trovatore (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think Derived ring would be more appropriate, since this is not necessarily about constructions related to commutative rings. But for derived algebraic geometry, one usually uses derived commutative rings / derived commutative algebras. Here is a good 4-page introductory treatment: Notices of the AMS article. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely that’s one option. It’s just there is also a derived noncommutative algebra of sort used in noncommutative algebraic geometry. So my thinking was "derived ring theory" can be a broad enough name to cover various derived generalizations of rings. If the neologism is a concern, maybe "derived version of ring theory" or something may be another option. —- Taku (talk) 05:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If "derived ring" is a standard term, then my concern about "derived ring theory" being a neologism is significantly lessened. That said, is there any need for the "theory" bit? If a derived ring is a well-specified sort of object, maybe lead with object, and discuss the theory in the body. As an aside, I've never quite made my mind up about object-versus-field-of-study articles. We have, for example, both group (mathematics) and group theory; the division of labor between them is a little hard to work out. The hatnotes claim that the "theory" article is "more advanced", but it's not at all clear why exactly that should be. Arguably the "theory" article should be more general in scope and more focused on applications than the "object" article. But for this case, it seems doubtful that there's enough material to split up that way. --Trovatore (talk) 06:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, "derived ring" isn't some well-established object studied by many. I suppose it's more like a platonic concept; people study something more tangible like spectral ring or ring spectrum, which are concrete incarnations of a hypothetical derived ring. That was actually a reason for the "theory" bit in the title (so not to suggest there is a thing called a derived ring). You're right that in Wikipedia we don't quite have a good naming convention for a topic in math instead of more concrete stuff like objects or theorems. That's probably not surprising given the encyclopedic (thus dictionary-like) nature of Wikipedia. -- Taku (talk) 06:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If no one can even come up with a standard name, then I have my doubts that this is a mature topic to write an article about. Even worse than a neologism is an article that abstracts out a concept not abstracted out by the sources. But as I say I don't really grok the topic (once I see the word "cohomology" I know I'm out of my depth; I should really find out what that's about) so I could be off base as to whether that's what's happening. --Trovatore (talk) 06:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded to this below. —- Taku (talk) 10:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Searching for something like "derived ring" algebra instead of "derived ring theory" will return the relevant results. Google Scholar results. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have stated that above. A $64,000 question is, do these results match the subject of this article? Do, for example, the following definitions match ours?
- "A derived ring is a differential graded ring concentrated in positive cohomological degrees"
- "a derived ring is a commutative ring object in non-positively graded cochain complexes over k" (IMHO, these definitions point to a commutative situation only, while ours clearly tiptoes around the issue of commutativity, but then I am not an expert, and will happily accept whatever judgment the experts render)
It would be nice to add a cite with a chapter and verse pointing to our variant of the definition in any literature at the very least (and drop the word "theory" altogether). Викидим (talk) 06:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote above, I deliberately named the article so it’s not about some particular object (e.g., a dg-ring, am E_n-ring, spectral ring, etc. etc.) studied in the field, which we might call the derived ring theory or some other names. What we have are various kinds of ways and attempts to generalize ordinary ring theory to the derived context. There is no one universal standard way to do that. I didn’t think and still don’t think having an article under some generic name means that that generic name has to be some specific math term referring to some specific object. While we may not have the universal answer to what a “derived ring” is, if there is sufficient literature on the topic (which seems to be the case), I think we can and should cover the topic (of course, I can see why others might disagree though). -- Taku (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is definitely an underlying topic, as others have noted (e.g., the derived stacks paper). This leaves a question of what to name the article. Here there seem to be unfortunate ambiguities. Such as I understand it, a derived algebra (or derived ring) is often just an algebra with a derivation. Perhaps an instance of "derived ring theory", but not the most general "simplicially enriched category of rings". On the other hand, the content of the article is extremely vague and not well-developed. I am left wondering specifically what the point is (how does it relate to the work of Maxim Kontsevich, for example.) The cited sources do not appear to support the overall subject well. I could be persuaded that either keep/delete/userfy are appropriate, but the article needs an expansion and rewrite. Tito Omburo (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There being an underlying topic is different from an underlying topic having been identified in the literature. We should not abstract out an underlying topic ourselves; that's not our role. If an underlying topic has been identified in the literature, I would have expected someone to have given it a name. --Trovatore (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has been identified in the literature, though, so this is unconvincing. E.g., Toën, Bertrand. "Derived algebraic geometry." EMS Surveys in Mathematical Sciences 1.2 (2014): 153-240. My comment is more that the article lacks enough sources and context to make this determination. Tito Omburo (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just now added wikilinks and a note that places this stubby article firmly into the middle of a constellation of inter-related articles, including E∞-operad and A∞-operad and ∞-category and differential graded algebras over R and simplicial commutative algebras over R. This is not some topic sitting out in a corner of hyperspace, all by itself. Its smack-dab in the middle of a collection of inter-related topics. ncatlab has a matrix that covers the inter-relationships here: En-algebra. In short this is a stub, but it can be expanded with additional content. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete barring developments I haven't seen yet. Taku has been admirably straightforward in agreeing that no one has really pulled together this collection of considerations into a systematized whole. Doing that is not the job of the encyclopedist; we need to wait for it to be done in the research community. We don't have to lose any material; the subtopics can be treated in their own articles. We just shouldn't be the first to abstract them out into a common whole. --Trovatore (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've spent the last week reviewing, updating and fixing up every article I can find on stochastic differential equations. This exercise has taught me that there is a lot of overlap between various articles, often covering the same material, using different notation, and written to audiences of varying mathematical sophistication. Notable is that a "systematized whole" emerges only if you read the dozen or two of the inter-related articles; otherwise, the only picture that emerges is that of piecemeal aggregation by different WP editors adding individual sand-grains into their preferred sand-pile. More or less all of WP seems to be constructed this way: editors who "pulled together this collection of considerations", oddly failing to create a "systematized whole", except in hind-sight.

So when I look at this article, and specifically, the section named "Foundations", I see an editing pattern analogous to that seen in SDE's: some crumbs of information, arranged in a fashion that is similar to what can be found in other articles, but speaking at a different level of mathematical sophistication, using a mildly different set of notational conventions and terminology. It's an attempt to explain a collection of relationships. It's incomplete, its stubby, but also, there's no particularly obvious way of merging it into any of the other articles that it's linked to. What I'm saying is "let it grow". Much like other stubby or start-class articles in WP, let it rest as an accumulation point, a nucleation seed for facts to accumulate. I mentioned the ncatlab article, to make it clear that lots of additional info could be added; its not like a systematic description of this topic is absent. The info is there, its just not here in WP.
(Also, I think it's notable. Please note that Urs Schreiber is deep into a program that redefines what the notion of a "point" is (and I mean "literally, a point", like what Euclid talked about. Like elementary-school, high-school "point", now redefined as an infinity category), which then, like dominoes, percolates into everything. Sure, many decades ago, the theory may have started with infinity groupoids, but now, its redefining core concepts of what a topological space is, what a group is, what a ring is, what a vector space is, what an algebra is. It's a daunting program, because its highly technical. But its also exciting, because it's laying a brand new foundation. To me, this is captured in the moniker "brave new ring" given in the lede. (Its actually quite revolutionary, and the relation to the string revolutions is not accidental.)) 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Responding to the first para: Just to be clear, I meant that no one in the outside world had "pulled together this collection of considerations into a systematized whole", but the article appeared to be an attempt to do so. If that systematization hasn't been done in the literature, then it shouldn't be done here; this was my point. Now Tito seems to be suggesting that it has been done in the literature, and if that is so, then I would withdraw the objection. --Trovatore (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the above puts the issue very nice: we are at the moment when the history is being written. We don't know what the end product (derived ring theory) would be like but it seems almost guaranteed we will have something in the future. The question is then when is an appropriate point for encyclopedic treatment? For me, now is ok; kind like, it's perfectly ok to write about a developing event; Wikipedia is different in that regard from traditional encyclopedias. But clearly the others like Trovatore think otherwise. -- Taku (talk) 07:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My view is it's perfectly find to cover the parts, but we should not attempt to abstract a whole, because that could wind up influencing developments in the outside world, which we are not supposed to do. We are followers, not leaders. Yes, we can write about developing events, but only to the extent that it has been done in reliable sources. --Trovatore (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I basically agree with this. If sources cannot be found that directly support the text, it should be userfied (or merged to derived algebraic geometry). Tito Omburo (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Yes, derived algebraic geometry seems like a good merge target! But since these days, (non-derived, plain-old-ordinary) algebraic geometry is two-thirds rings and schemes, putting the word "derived" in front of "ring" does not feel like much of a neologism. I dunno. Whatever. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 03:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First to Trovatore: I doubt Wikipedia is that influential :) Just having one Wikipedia article doesn't realistically and shouldn't mean there is a unified theory. I do concede the article title here can be misleading in that it hits such a theory. So, alternative titles like derived generalizations of a ring or something may be better. As the article "ring" is already long, it should be justifiable to have a separate article on generalizations.

As for derived algebraic geometry (DAG), yes, derived rings are often used in the context of DAG. But it seems some authors do study derived rings of sort on their own merits. So, I figured some spin-off article like this one can make sense. -- Taku (talk) 08:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you underestimate WP's influence. Seriously. Using WP to affect things in the outside world is way too easy, which is basically why we have so many guardrails against doing so. As to your second sentence, I disagree; if we have a single article, it should mean that it is about something, and that something is not for us to identify and prise out. That should be done in the outside world first. --Trovatore (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As cogently argued by Trovatore PatrickR2 (talk) 04:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very well argued by Trovatore. I must have looked at this article a dozen times when I was reviewing it. I'm glad there is other experts. scope_creep^Talk 14:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ring Theory This does not look like it is good for a stand alone article. Seems better in main ring theory article. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly the "ring theory" can be a place for the discussion of the topic this article is about. But as that article is long, it seemed (still does to me at least) to make sense to have a spin-off article specialized to the derived aspect in ring theory Taku (talk) 02:43, 14 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 14:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Catalan Geode

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

Entirely based on a single one-month-old primary source. Delete per WP:OR and WP:GNG. D.Lazard (talk) 12:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. D.Lazard (talk) 12:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the primary source ~~has no citations~~ has not been cited. I see no notability here. —

Q

uantling (talk | contribs) 13:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - the paper was published in The American Mathematical Monthly and contains numerous citations, can you elaborate on your comments? — preceding comment by User:Jasonbook99

I apologize for my ambiguously worded comment; I have modified it. Yes, I can believe that the primary source cites other papers. However, no papers have ever cited this primary source according to Google Scholar. If this result is notable, we need to have some evidence of that. —

Q

uantling (talk | contribs) 13:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A brand-new uncited research paper together with breathless and heavily distorted press releases about it is, in general, not a fit subject for an encyclopedia. To make this decision we don't have to get into the question of how it could possibly be a principled hyperfinitist position to believe in infinite power series but not believe in decimal representations of real numbers (a very special case of power series), but if anyone is curious there's an interesting discussion of this work at [1]. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Newsweek offered unaffiliated coverage, but it seems premature to identify "Catalan Geode" as a distinct term fit for an encyclopedia. Perhaps enough coverage exists to convert Norman J. Wildberger from a redirect into an article that discusses this work and his 2005 book Divine Proportions: Rational Trigonometry to Universal Geometry, but I leave that to others' judgement. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 13:45, 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 no consensus‎. This is near a consensus to keep or merge the article, but the discussion did not get there. Malinaccier (talk) 20:53, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Solinas prime

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

This appears to be a made up name and topic. Of the sources that have ever appeared in the article, it is attested to only in sources that trace the name back to this Wikipedia article, via https://oeis.org/A165255 . This is true both of the original topic of the article (primes of the form $2^{a}\pm 2^{b}\pm 1$ ) and the new topic (as of this complete rewrite from 2017). The PROD was removed by an IP who pointed to [2], a work by Solinas that does not use the name "Solinas prime". Any encyclopedic content from the sources without the hoax name could be included at Mersenne_prime#Generalizations (which already cites this source). JBL (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment it seems there are a few mentions of this concept in the literature, e.g. [3] (I dont know how reputable Journal of Signal Processing Systems is but it seems reasonable to me) but most of the other ones are IEEE and abstracts, maybe someone with more training in mathematics could look whether this name is accepted in pure maths circles. It seems that at least some reviewers are not objecting to the name in engineering / signal processing. --hroest 16:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A search in WP:The Wikipedia Library shows a few papers about the concept. A google search show the concept precedes the 2009 wikipedia article. Examples from 2002, 2006 and 2008: [4] [5] [6]. Two sources in the article are from 1999 [7] [8]. I don't think the concept is made up. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Solinas primes are a recognized class of prime numbers with applications in cryptography, particularly in ECC, among other areas. I found multiple high-quality academic sources in which they are directly discussed, including IEEE and Springer (WP:RS):
- IEEE: [9], [10], [11];
- Springer: [12], [13], [14].

I've also checked Google Scholar [15], which shows pages of academic results for Solinas primes, laying to rest any claim of them being fringe. NIST, the gold standard in cybersecurity, has also recommended Solinas primes for cryptographic protocols. This topic easily meets WP:GNG. HerBauhaus (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources given in comments show enough notability. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @hroest, I've found some sourcing that may be useful for assessing the subject's notability per WP:NEXIST. HerBauhaus (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mersenne prime. The article says Solinas prime is a generalized Mersenne prime. I see mostly primary sources in Solinas prime article and very few sources at all. Not enough for a stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - (assuming it's authentic - I have not idea about that). I got to this page from Curve448 and it was useful for me (saved me a google / LLM search) 146.196.39.214 (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 05:35, 19 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 14:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roshdi Khalil

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

Potentially notable mathematician but there has been some discussion on whether he is notable on talk and that has not been resolved. Looking for a wider discussion. A note tag has been placed on the article. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 11:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Mathematics, and Jordan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - According to Google Scholar, and his work has been cited 6291 by others; he has an h-index of 23, and an i10-index of 46. He is a tenured Full Professor. I don't know enough about these scores in relation to his specific field of mathematics to be able to interpret them, but it seems he may be notable. Apparently he is also a poet. Netherzone (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I wrote on the article talk some time ago, "Heavy citations in mathematics, centered on dubious journals, can be less a sign of notability and more a sign that something suspicious is going on." See Science: Citation cartels help some mathematicians—and their universities—climb the rankings: Widespread citation manipulation has led entire field of math to be excluded from influential list of top researchers. The subject is exactly the sort of person this was targeted at: someone high on the lists of heavily cited mathematicians but whose name would be unfamiliar to most mainstream mathematicians. For this reason I think we need to base notability on something else other than WP:PROF#C1. I don't see any evidence of that something else. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - based on the information that David Eppstein has shared. It's good to be aware of the fact that this sort of gaming of the system occurs in the mathematics field. A BEFORE search had revealed nothing else, and the awards are not notable, they are run-of-the-mill teaching awards. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Netherzone (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - based on the analysis above. However it does raise the question of how NPROF#1 should be assessed in mathematics going forward, probably going by awards and recognitions? --hroest 15:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, probably. Major mathematics societies have issued statements telling mathematicians not to rely solely on citation counts in evaluation: IMU (IMU summary), AMS. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:39, 5 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 merge‎ to Optimal radix choice. – robertsky (talk) 01:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steiner's calculus problem

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

Not notable! A slightly interesting Calculus I problem, with a single MathWorld citation (which has a penchant for neologisms). --Bumpf said this! ^{ooh clicky clicky!} [insert witty meta-text on wiki-sigs here] 19:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. --Bumpf said this! ^{ooh clicky clicky!} [insert witty meta-text on wiki-sigs here] 19:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to optimal radix choice, the usual context where this optimization problem comes up and is already covered (albeit primarily as an integer optimization problem, but the continuous version is also discussed). I think it probably is covered in enough textbooks that, if we could dig them up, we could justify notability, maybe not under this name, but I think the claim "this function has its maximum at this point" is too small to justify a separate article. The detailed justification for why the answer is what it is does not need to be merged. I will leave a note about this at the talk page of the target. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per David Eppstein. Bearian (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to optimal radix choice per David Eppstein. He knows what he's doing. Iljhgtn (talk) 06:37, 9 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 06:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kunerth's algorithm

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

Reason

The first reason I believe the page should be removed is non-notability. There are only two non-forum references I can find not written by the Wikipedia article's creator and main contributor about Kunerth's algorithm. (Both references are listed in the Wikipedia article.) The first is the original 1878 paper by Kunerth^[1]. It is written in German, a language neither me nor the article's creator can read (as they admitted in the talk page). The second reference is a 1920 textbook^[2]. The reference to Kunerth's algorithm in the textbook is fairly short (shorter than the body of the article), and is mostly just a restatement and very terse summary of Kunerth's original paper, with no proofs. In my opinion, an algorithm that finds modular square roots isn't notable on its own anymore because there already multiple, well known algorithms the solve the modular square root problem. (There are four Wikipedia articles on different algorithms that solve the problem.) Admittedly, the claim that $N$ doesn't need to be factored is different from the other algorithms, and may warrant notability. However, the 1920 textbook directly contradicts this claim (it states that $N$ must be prime). So, there seems to be only two relevant references to Kunerth's algorithm, one written in a language neither I nor the article's creator can read, and the other which directly contradicts one of the main claims in the article.

The second reason I'm nominating this Wikipedia page for deletion is because the most of the page is incomprehensible, low quality, and probably not correct. The algorithm as written does not work. There are many variables that aren't defined. (For example, what are $A$ and $C$ ?). As noted before me on the talk page, it seems like $w$ can be anything. There is no indication as to how the algorithm works when a square root doesn't exist (i.e., if there are no solutions $y$ to the congruence $y^{2}\equiv B\mod N$ ). There is no attempt at a proof of correctness, or even an attempt to explain why the algorithm works. While the main contributor has posted many examples of Mathematica I/O (input/output) on the talk page, there seems to be no code (pseduo or otherwise) that actually implements the algorithm in general. Two other user before me also had concerns about the algorithm presented in the article, and in neither case, were these concerns resolved by the article's main contributor.

Most of the concerns addressed in the previous paragraph could theoretically be addressed and fixed. However, as stated in the first paragraph, I don't believe that Kunerth's algorithm is notable enough and too few references on the topic seems to be available. Obviously, I don't feel comfortable fixing the article unless other references on Kunerth's algorithm are found, due to the language barrier of the original paper and the lack of other English references. Regardless, the state of the current article needs to be addressed.

For more context, see the discussion I started on it's talk page: Talk:Kunerth's_algorithm#This_article_should_be_deleted. Also, here is another user attempting to understand the algorithm presented directly on the main contributor's talk page: User_talk:Endo999#A_question_about_Kunerth’s_algorithm_on_how_to_get_several_square_root_for_the_same_square….

Also, as a disclaimer. I'm not an active Wikipedia contributor, so I welcome any feedback about my approach to nominating an article for deletion. byhill (talk) 04:33, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Adolf Kunerth, "Sitzungsberichte. Academie Der Wissenschaften" vol 78(2), 1878, p 327-346, url="https://pdfhost.io/v/~OwxzpPNA_KUNERTH_1878" retrieved="30/05/2025"
^ Leonard Eugene Dickson, "History of Numbers", vol 2, pp. 383–384.

The article is noteable as it has two pages devoted to it in the 1920 History of Numbers by Leonard Dickson, who was the premiere American mathematician between 1900 and 1950. Saying that Dickson's reference is 100 years old is like saying that Dante wrote in 1300 and his thought does not reflect Catholic church dogma. It does and so similarly is Dickson's expertise in Number theory (1920) to be respected. Endo999 (talk) 04:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Kunerth modular square root algorithm is notable as it is the only one I know of that manages to find the square root of a number without factoring the

modulus. For that alone it is notable. The algorithm substitutes the requirement that a quadratic equation must be solved for the need to factor the modulus. It can do this for modula that cannot be factored. Endo999 (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Dickson source talks only about prime moduli. If you know that the modulus is prime you know its prime factorization. So there is no avoidance of factoring. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't how you come to the conclusion that $N$ does not need to be factored. Dickson contradicts this claim. While I can't read Kunerth's paper due to language barriers, all the examples in the paper use prime moduli. The claim that $N$ doesn't need to be factored needs to be backed up.

Additionally, the integer factorization problem is equivalent to finding modular square roots [16]. So if Kunerth's algorithm doesn't require $N$ to be factored, then it must solve an equally difficult problem. byhill (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kunerth's method does not require factorisation of the modulus. I've tested this on the TALK page where I factor 5 for the modulus

1+RSA260^4+18*RSA260^2, a modulus that cannot be factored by current means. Endo999 (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[[17]]. In fact Kunerth's method can take the modular square root of 5 for any modulus of the formula 1+x^4+18*x^2. Endo999 (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment here is further evidence that this article is in irrecoverable violation of WP:OR and WP:V. --JBL (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this original research or just agile use of the existing modular square root algorithm. Endo999 (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So agile that no one else can see how it relates to anything in any reliable source .... --JBL (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Those pages of Dickson are readable here: [18]. Reading them, it becomes obvious that Kunerth's work is primarily about finding integer solutions $(x,y)$ to the quadratic equation $y^{2}=ax^{2}+bx+c$ . Modular square roots, for prime moduli only, are mentioned in one paragraph as a special case of this method for $a=0$ and modulus $b$ . It does not really support the case made by our article that something called "Kunerth's algorithm" is a general method for finding modular square roots, and having a single secondary source on this method (whatever the method actually is determined to be) is not enough for WP:GNG-based notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per byhill and Eppstein. Also, looking on the talk page of the article, it appears, that the editor wrote a computer implementation, made some tests, and tried to (poorly) describe their implementation in this article. This is WP:Original research, and does not belong to Wikipedia. D.Lazard (talk) 08:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the compelling nomination; this article appears to be an unintentional hoax. --JBL (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and discussion. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I'm especially moved by David Eppstein's arguments. There are several notable algorithms for primes and square roots. This article would confuse our readers. Bearian (talk) 09:26, 5 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 04:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Gustavo Rosado Muñoz

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Mexico. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Mathematics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was able to verify that he received a licenciate in actuarial mathematics from UNAM in 1964 [19]. Searching Google Scholar did not find anything by the subject. But it did find [20], apparently a 2007 government notice to other government agencies and states informing them that they must not do business with him (or someone with the same name). I could not find anything in the article to explain this, but it seems like the sort of thing that should be reflected somehow in our article, with better sourcing. However, neither of these finds directly contributes to notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- On reflection, if it turns out that we cannot find sourcing for what this is about, it might be a reason to delete the article: there is information that is inadequately sourced for WP:BLP to allow us to mention, but for which not mentioning is problematic with respect to WP:N, and therefore deleting is the best resolution of this contradiction. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since he died in 2013, BLP would no longer apply. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Orphaned article without any source. Subject of the article is not notable. WP:NOT is not met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itzcuauhtli11 (talk • contribs)

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]

Delete as I didn't express a clear !vote above. We don't have evidence of WP:GNG, nor sourcing usable for an article. There are claims that might plausibly pass WP:PROF#C6 but we do not have sourcing to verify them let alone judge their significance. We do have evidence that the article is not a full and accurate reflection of his life. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Bearian (talk) 21:26, 8 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

(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]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:48, 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.

Mathematics proposed deletions

Mathematics miscellany for deletion

Mathematics redirects for discussion

[1] Adolf Kunerth, "Sitzungsberichte. Academie Der Wissenschaften" vol 78(2), 1878, p 327-346, url="https://pdfhost.io/v/~OwxzpPNA_KUNERTH_1878" retrieved="30/05/2025"

[2] Leonard Eugene Dickson, "History of Numbers", vol 2, pp. 383–384.

[1]

[2]