Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Mathematics

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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

Generalized game theory

Generalized game theory (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)

This concept doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines, since most of the articles that talk about this concept are from the authors themselves. The current sentence in the lead "The theory was developed by Tom R. Burns, Anna Gomolinska, and Ewa Roszkowska but has not had great influence beyond these immediate associates" is especially problematic for a Wikipedi article.

However, the article has a lot of content and has been around since 2008, so it could benefit from a deeper look from the community to validate this 7804j (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Will proceed to merge as proposed by another contributor as soon as this discussion is closed 7804j (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - I wrote this page after AfDs for two other pages on work related to Burns. While the concept is primarily used in the work of Burns and his research group, it is used in multiple peer reviewed articles and represents a significant part of the research agenda of that group. The theory remains in use within that group (and even if it didn't, I'd still !vote wk). Smmurphy(Talk) 22:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: Since the concept seems to be almost exclusively tied to the originating author, the article contents should be merged to Tom R. Burns, who does have a wikipedia page. The concept on its own does not merit the page existence, as per nomination. Pragmatic Puffin (talk) 08:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's a good idea, so I'll withdraw my nomination and proceed with the merge once this discussion is closed 7804j (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I propose to extend the "merge" to this article as well. 7804j (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: The basic material is verifiable in reliable, but not fully independent sources. Because of the lack of independence, I don't think it satisfies notability according to WP:GNG. Given that the topic is closely associated with Tom R. Burns and we try to preserve verifiable content per WP:PRESERVE, a merge to Tom R. Burns is a reasonable alternative to deletion. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 redirect‎ to Rational trigonometry. Per consensus, restoring redirect. – robertsky (talk) 02:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Wildberger

Norman Wildberger (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)

Math BLP which was converted in 2022 by David Eppstein to a redirect to a book by Norman Wildberger. Redirect replaced by Ad Huikeshoven by one paragraph on the book, plus a cite to a YouTube page (dubious as a RS). Time for some extra eyes on the question of whether to enforce the (implicitly contested) prior redirect. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Including or excluding Norman Wildberger from Wikipedia has been, for some reason, a long-running dispute, lasting many years. I once, years ago, created an article with his name as the title. It was quickly deleted. I was surprised but decided there was no reason for me to pursue the matter. After all this time here is the issue again. I know Wildberger published a paper on some extension of Catalan Numbers. Maybe the paper is a genuine contribution to mathematics and maybe it will turn out not to be. However, why is Wildberger's inclusion such a hot topic? I really have no idea, but I wonder if there is a vendetta involved. Dratman (talk) 04:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment led me indirectly to recall Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman J. Wildberger. It was long ago and before the more recent publicity both for the current material and for his work on Babylonian mathematics, so I don't think it should be taken as precedent, but it does shed light on how long this has been going on and on the rationale for the redirection of your version, at least:
  • Creation of an article on "rational trigonometry": 2005 (at that time not focused on the book but on the mathematics it described)
  • Original creation of biography under "Norman J. Wildberger" (still visible in the history of that title): 2006 by Overlord~enwiki, immediately disputed as non-neutral
  • Rational trigonometry tagged as problematic based on using only the book as a source: 2009
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman J. Wildberger: 2009. I did not take part in the debate, but performed the merge that it called for.
  • Redirect "Norman Wildberger" pointing to same article created, 2010
  • "Norman Wildberger" split off as a separate biography, 2011 by Dratman, restored as a redirect by me, since at that time we had a recent consensus not to keep the two separate.
  • Meanwhile the article on rational trigonometry was long problematic and was tagged as having only one source (Wildberger's book) in 2009
  • Rational trigonometry acquired more tags including one for notability in 2013. More sources including book reviews were added, and this caused some edit-warring as editor Paul White pushed to remove any criticism from the main part of the article and link it only at the end. After more edit-warring by single-purpose accounts, SohCahToaBruz proposed that it be deleted in 2013 but Arxiloxos removed the prod as it was clearly not uncontroversial and had a previous deletion discussion.
  • In 2015 there was again a repeated attempt by some anonymous editors to remove critical material from the lead, and disputes over the placement of this material continued until at least 2018 when I semi-protected the article (allowing only long-term editors to change it for the following year)
  • In 2020 I took the initiative to change it from an article about rational trigonometry to an article about the book itself. I believed then and now that the book is clearly notable as the subject of multiple independent reliably-published reviews, regardless of whether or not any other related topics are separately notable. (I happen to have a copy of the book prominent on my office bookshelf but I hope the article reflects only the views of the published reviewers and not my own.)
  • Since then there have still been some disputes but overall the book article has been much more stable than the rational trigonometry article was.
  • Another creation of a separate biography (by another editor), restored as a redirect, 2022.
I don't know whether this history sheds any light on why this has been such a matter of dispute, but I hope it helps. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect. It's definitely not impossible this paper could become notable but I don't think that what look like blog posts copied from a press release are enough for notability of the person. Sesquilinear (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The new work on the power series solution to polynomials is mathematically legitimate and pretty cool, though I don't know how important. It's published in the American Mathematical Monthly which is where the AMS puts articles of general mathematical interest that aren't too technical. I wasn't aware that he had written a book. I don't know what he means about not believing in irrational numbers, but that seems to be a thing with combinatorialists: Doron Zeilberger is very respectable, and doesn't believe in infinite sets (i.e. he believes that the set of integers is finite, aka ultrafinitism). Anyway I don't have any objection to keeping the article. I don't know anything about an earlier controversy if there was one. Wildberger fwiw has a Youtube channel with a sizeable viewership (127K, not bad for a math channel). I've only watched one video (the one about the recent work on polynomial solutions) and it was informative and watchable. 2601:644:8581:75B0:EDBF:1B48:1FC1:48B8 (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect – Nothing about Norman Wildberger seems to even remotely meet the bar of notability. We need to be especially cautious of anything that is hyped in the pop-press, because this triggers a "this is cool" response in the enamoured who then include it in WP. (This is aside from the distaste that I have for self-promotion, and boosting his viewership through WP is just icky.) —Quondum 12:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect - Notablility is not established with the sources. Certainly not enough for a stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:56, 18 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. Further discussion regarding a merge can be discussed on the article's talk page. ✗plicit 14:22, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nori motive

Nori motive (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)

Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:59, 10 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 Mental calculation. Eddie891 Talk Work 08:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13th root

13th root (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)

No reliable sources. Who am I? / Talk to me! / What have I done? 06:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This topic + other mental calculation challenges seem like they would fit better as a subsection of the Mental Calculation page.
  • Delete There's no way to make a whole encyclopedia article out of this, as far as I can tell. The Guinness Book is a novelty gimmick that's mostly an opportunity for marketing stunts, not a guide to what serious people ought to take seriously. Briefly mentioning it in another article, like the Mental calculation one mentioned above, is the most that could be justified, and even that looks like a stretch. 64.112.179.236 (talk) 05:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to mental calculation. At time of nomination, the article had only a single source, an unrecoverable dead link from a student-help website, and included several unsourced claims that may appear to be original research (e.g. the last digit of the 13th root is always the same as the last digit of the power). However, a WP:BEFORE search was able to uncover multiple relevant sources, allowing the majority of these claims to be verified (see post-nomination edits).
    By far the most valuable reference I found was the discussion of 13th-root-finding records, record-holders, and techniques in Smith, Steven Bradley (1983). The Great Mental Calculators: The Psychology, Methods, and Lives of Calculating Prodigies, Past and Present. New York: Columbia University Press. pp. 129–131. ISBN 0231056419.. WP:GNG stipulates there should generally be significant coverage in multiple secondary sources (with a footnote that Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic), and I think it's borderline whether this is met, as other secondary sources cover the topic in less depth: e.g. MathWorld's coverage is only two paragraphs long. Hence I'm recommending either keeping or merging, depending on how you interpret the line here.
    If we decide to merge, mental calculation would be an appropriate target, given the existence of references like Butterworth, Brian (2018). "Mathematical Expertise". In Ericsson, Karl Anders (ed.). The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781316480748. with this as their primary topic, but which don't cover 13th roots beyond summarizing Smith (1983)'s description of Wim Klein's methods and achievements in this area. If we instead decide to keep the article as standalone, I think it would be appropriate to rename the article to something like "Mental calculation of 13th roots", together with adding a section on techniques based on Smith (1983) and the WP:ABOUTSELF sources Mittring (2004) and Lemaire and Rousseaux (2009). Preimage (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum: I've just found Doerfler, Ronald W. (1993). Dead Reckoning: Calculating Without Instruments. Lanham: Taylor Trade Publishing. ISBN 9781589796737., which has a chapter on mental calculation of roots. While its coverage of roots of perfect powers is broadly similar to Smith (1983), this suggests an intermediate alternative: broadening the scope of the article to mental calculation of roots, allowing us to use this as an additional secondary reference. Preimage (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 08:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mental calculation, don't really think many people will be looking for this.
Suggested steps:
Text in 13th root:
#redirect mental calculation#13th root SeaDragon1 (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mental calculation or a similar target sounds quite sensible. There aren't many sources, and the interest in these roots is clearly restricted to their use in mental arithmetic. I think moving the material there strengthens the article on mental arithmetic, and it's very unlikely someone will come looking for the current article if they're not looking for it in the context of mental arithmetic. Wikipedia should be measured by the quality of its articles, not the quantity, and there's no point in making loads of mini-articles out of topics that belong under one roof. I'd suggest copying the whole of this into a section in mental arithmetic on "feats of mental arithmetic" of similar, for which thirteenth roots could be one of potentially quite a few sub-sections. Elemimele (talk) 13:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above or Draftify. Oreocooke (talk) 16:31, 16 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

Solinas prime (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)

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 ) and the new topic (as of this complete rewrite from 2017). The PROD was removed by an IP who pointed to [1], 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]

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: [3] [4] [5]. Two sources in the article are from 1999 [6] [7]. 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):
I've also checked Google Scholar [14], 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]
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.

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=1290792032"