Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Differentiating Functions
I'm fairly positive this article is identical in material to the article Calculus with polynomials, so I move that it be deleted. If I'm missing something important, don't hesitate to let me know. In the discussion, put Delete if you agree and Keep if you don't. Comments are also welcome. - ElAmericano 00:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- It is a while since I did calculus at school. While I am prepared to accept that the article being considered for deletion covers the same ground as Calculus with polynomials I would suggest that it is beter expressed for those of us who are a little rusty. I suggest a merge or at the very least some attempt to include material for the layperson in Calculus with polynomials.--AYArktos (Talk) 00:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- The thing is, the article is just a proof that the polynomial power rule works. It doesn't explain anything about calculus. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia (I was around, but not very active, before I registered), so I'm not sure, but is it Wikipedia habit to put mathematical proof for laymen in articles? If so, I will agree with you. - ElAmericano 01:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- delete unless someone's willing to do some serious cleanup. It has essentially no formatting right now; in my book that's grounds for deletion in itself, in an article that long. --Trovatore 05:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- delete inappropriate redunancy. we're not a textbook. the important facts about differentiation can already be found elsewhere. -Lethe | Talk 06:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- Merge after further cleanup to Calculus with polynomials. The only part of the proof that I suspect is the use of the binomial theorem. If that's legit, we should keep it. Gazpacho 06:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment the proof is basically fine; the problem is that it's presented in essentially stream-of-consciousness form, and contains nonsense assertions like "Differentiating is the differentiation quotient in one point". If you want to add the proof to Calculus with polynomials, I have no objection to that, provided it's rewritten to have some logical structure. --Trovatore 06:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- It should be renamed proof of the power rule in differentiation and get a complete rewrite. Unless anybody is willing to do the work, this article should be deleted or redirected. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- delete. The page Derivative (examples) shows differentiation from first principles already. It may be useful to move the proof there. The other page Calculus with polynomials is also a bit of a mess. The paragraph on 'Formal Diffentiation' seems out of place, and not at all well explained.Mattopia 06:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- I would disagree with moving the proof to derivative (examples). That one is a sweet elementary article showing several very concrete examples, and does not need this proof which does not add much value in understanding the derivative for novices beyond what already is in derivative (examples). I agree that the calculus with polynomials article is a mess, that might not hurt being turned into a redirect to derivative (examples) as well (without copying any of the info). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 07:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. This is text book material, not fit for an encyclopaedia (so transwiki to b:Real analysis/Differentiation or b:Calculus:Differentiation is an option). If there is no consensus for deleting the article, it is probably best to merge it with calculus with polynomials. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- merge somewhere. Possibly Calculus with polynomials. I find it hard to beleive that we don't have this proof already somewhere. --MarSch 12:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I am usually fond of chatty proofs, but this one is too chatty. Rick Norwood 14:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect somewhere, if this topic doesn't qualify for it's own article. This is useful information, and explained in a way I could understand. --TH 15:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)