Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2016/Cantor's diagonal argument

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to Keep. Important to have; good start, even if article needs more work. --Eptalon (talk) 10:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cantor's diagonal argument

Cantor's diagonal argument (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Some Gadget Geek has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This article cannot stand as it is now. We need to explain how exactly the proof works and that will be very difficult without using technical jargon beyond what is generally appropriate enough for the simplewiki. << S O M E G A D G E T G E E K >> (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion

Keep: Cantor's diagonal argument, while complex, can be explained using simple language, if the editors aren't too lazy! It just needs to be explained in the right way! Give it time! 24.15.68.186 (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is actively working on it, that would be fine. If not, and if the article is insufficient as it is, then there's a limit to how long we would keep it. That limit is the length of time that this RfD runs. If does get deleted, it can always be recreated when someone can make it a better article. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ~~Delete~~. The subject is encyclopedic ~~but the article, as written, is nothing more than a bare mention, with no real explanation of the topic, nor even a source.~~ If the creator or other interested parties are able to create a simplified version of the EnWiki version, then I would support keeping it. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 03:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC) I can now support keeping this article. It still needs work, of course, but if we delete every article that needs work, we won't have much left. Other editors are reminded that the subject is not one that will interest, say, fifth-grade students, so our ideal is not to eliminate all of the mathematical jargon but rather to explain it so that English learners who have an interest in this arm of mathematics can understand the English used to explain it. Sources are still badly needed. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 02:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent about half an hour, translating some content. The article now shows the proof Cantor used; it uses everyday language. What still needs to be done: There are three publications of Cantor, of 1877, 1891, and 1899. At the moment, the article is about the article of 1877. Ideally, the content of the two other publications can be added here. The article also needs references. In short: I think it is keepable now. --Eptalon (talk) 11:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is complex and without any source citations. Having to sort through this in detail is exactly what we do not want readers to have to do. To keep it would need to be simplified, wikified and cited with reliable source citations. Rus793 (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cantor was German, the three articles mentioned are in German. Über eine elementare Frage der Mannigfaltigkeitslehre. Jahresbericht der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung, Vol I, pp 75ff. The problem with the proof is that is not formalized (and therefore probably easier to understand). A formalized proof was only given in 1910. Über eine Eigenschaft des Inbegriffes aller reellen algebraischen Zahlen. Journal für die Reine und Angewandte Mathematik Vol 77, pp. 258–262.. --Eptalon (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see these German titles even mentioned in the article and it still has no source citations showing the subject is notable. My comment was based on the article as it is now, not what it might be at some point in the future. This is not one of my favorite subjects but I'll "prime the pump", so to speak, with a source citation (OK, two, I got a little carried away). I used one of the titles you mentioned above. Two, however, doesn't seem to me to be enough so I think more would be needed. Rus793 (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think. Important to have, even if we cannot produce a deep explanation. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

This request is due to close on 19:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.