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 AnomieBOT (talk | contribs) at 09:31, 22 May 2025 (Archiving closed XfDs (errors?): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolfgang Sternberg). 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 redirect‎ to Quintic function. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brioschi quintic form

Brioschi quintic form (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)

How to page on an obscure quintec, full of WP:OR and self-published sources (blogs). Page was draftified in November 2024, with advice to cleanup and resubmit via AfC. Originator has ignored this, doubled the size of the paper and recently moved it back to main. No clear demonstration of notability, and numerous problems. Wikipedia is not the place for advertising of a users work in any form. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Redirect to quintic. A Scholar search for just "Brioschi quintic" gives some promising results, like [1] in Notices of the AMS; I suspect that and the Doyle-McMullen (currently a broken link but the paper was in Acta Mathematica) might be enough to get a good article out, though the current article does not seem to be that. At the very least, I think the form deserves a mention on articles about the quintic more generally. Sesquilinear (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: I'm not sure this article, as-is, is salvageable (it contains far too much barely-explained computation, and far too little of the interesting properties of these functions); if I were to write something, I'd probably do it from scratch or by expanding part of another more general article about quintics. As such, suggesting a redirect. Sesquilinear (talk) 15:38, 26 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. Cabayi (talk) 07:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of humorous names in mathematics

List of humorous names in mathematics (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)

Essentially WP:OR, personal taste (or lack of it) whether something is "humorous" ("killing field", hilarious; "mother functor", if you pronounce it completely wrong it almost sounds like, well, you guessed it) and not a defining characteristic for most of these. Fram (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is obviously subjectivity in humour, but firstly there are numerous compilations of these online, even in fairly reputable places refs 1,2,3,4; secondly many of them are deliberate jokes e.g. look at the name origin section on Cox–Zucker machine and lastly there are similar pages e.g. in mathematics Mathematical joke or elsewhere Lists of pejorative terms for people where inclusion or exclusion of examples can't be completely objective.
Feel free to change the list, but you know, have some fun too. WikiNukalito (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to this request to keep, as per Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists and references 1,2,3,4 these terms have ' been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources'. The items are not just personal taste, they're all in the lists in the quoted references. WikiNukalito (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not really similar to this article. Azuredivay (talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing quite as fun as explaining jokes on Wikipedia... Taste is subjective but to re-iterate, these are intentional jokes, with well documented and well known stories (The 'Ten Martini Problem', Cox–Zucker machine etc etc.) or if not intentional, then referenced in articles [1] about such things.
This kind of list is not unusual on here either Wikipedia:Unusual_place_names, Wikipedia:Unusual articles, List of humorous units of measurement... and the criteria for inclusion is not particularly subjective either - intended to be funny or well accepted to be. If you think some entries on the list don't meet those criteria, delete them. I would have perhaps improved the list if it hadn't been flagged for deletion 10 seconds after I created it. The people applying subjective criteria are the ones calling it tasteless.
Move it to 'List of mathematics considered humorous', if that helps to preserve the sanctity of the encyclopedia which hosts articles like Breast-shaped hill and -ussy WikiNukalito (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://chalkdustmagazine.com/features/things-with-silly-names/

Delete. This might be considered humorous by a ten-year old boy, but it's basically childish. Athel cb (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to "unusual names" and rework the paragraph. Tepkunset (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to Mathematical joke. WP:LISTCRITERIA states Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. The current version of the article cites reliable primary sources for considering some individual terms humorous (e.g. Cox–Zucker machine), but only cites one reliable source covering the topic itself (the article in Chalkdust Magazine; e.g. the citations 1,3,4 mentioned above are unacceptable WP:USERGENERATED sources). Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chemical compounds with unusual names (7th nomination), which reached consensus to keep based on two reliable secondary book sources. I was not able to uncover analogous sources covering this topic in Google Books and Scholar. Unless other editors are able to improve the sourcing situation, I recommend either deleting or merging with Mathematical joke (the main article associated with Category:Mathematical humor). Preimage (talk) 13:31, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want another 'reliable' source, try [1]. I did not have to try too hard to find this. As you say, the individual terms often have explanations of their names on their own pages. I would be happy to improve this article, but not if it's going to be deleted soon.
    The inclusion criteria is no more vague that any of the many lists of 'unusual' items e.g. Place names considered unusual. As suggested by many, changing 'humorous' to 'unusual' is fine with me, though it seems like a minor difference. WikiNukalito (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definitely WP:OR. My cursory examination of the sources (a sample of four) doesn't establish that RS believe the names are humorous, rather (it appears) the editor(s) find them humorous. Chetsford (talk) 20:31, 1 June 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) Techie3 (talk) 07:45, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Angus Taylor (disambiguation)

Angus Taylor (disambiguation) (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)

Unnecessary disambiguation page. Only two people with an article with a primary topic. The other two listed are a non notable musician and a non notable character. Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:54, 17 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.

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 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 [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]

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):
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]
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

  1. ^ https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/x-rated-math-words-dirty_n_5547923
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Mathematics&oldid=1291611145"