Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuzzy math

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 and Redirect to Fuzzy mathematics Nakon 16:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzzy math

Do not confuse with fuzzy logic or Fuzzy Mathematics. Article does not establish the notability of this particular use/misuse of the term. No citation is given for the claimed use in the US "math wars" debate. Single reference is to a misuse of the term by George Bush, which is not by itself notable or encyclopedic. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is actually almost begging to be a dab page. The first term can reasonably be redirect to math wars. The second one doesn't really seem to have been that important a talking point, rather a brief attempt to provide some focus for criticism. (There's no good place to redirect: United States presidential election, 2000 barely mentions the debates, and United States presidential election debates has a section for 2008 but not 2000.) In the middle is a wan attempt to distinguish either term from fuzzy logic and other serious mathematical uses. But maybe this just needs reformatting per WP:DAB. --Dhartung | Talk 10:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Put it in a lockbox. The article is unsourced, uninformative, and doesn't seem to exist except for any other reason than to show that the phrase was used during the 2000 American presidential election. Some vague statements about this being an educational issue seem to be thrown in simply to make this seem like more than a neologism that's now an oldie-ogism Mandsford (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article may not effectively establish this point, but the term has most definitely entered the U.S. vernacular with two meanings unrelated to fuzzy mathematics. The first meaning is as a derogatory term for "Everyday Math" and other fashionable math education curricula that are deemed to be seriously flawed. The second meaning is as a negative characterization of someone else's analysis of quantitative aspects of an economic or public policy issue. I get 186,000 hits on Google for the term "fuzzy math."
- Some examples for sense 1:
  - President Clinton's Mandate for Fuzzy Math, By Lynne V. Cheney, 1997.
  - Fuzzy Math: A Nationwide Epidemic, By Michelle Malkin, Wednesday, November 28, 2007.
  - How Not to Teach Math: New York’s chancellor Klein’s plan doesn’t compute, by Matthew Clavel, City Journal, 7 March 2003
- Some examples for sense 2:
  - Fuzzy math on carbon footprints, USA Today, 30 Jan 2008.
  - The Fuzzy Math of Eco-Accolades, Business Week magazine, 29 Oct 2007.
  - Bush Team's Fuzzy Math: Questions About Medicare Cost, Job Creation & The Deficit, CBS News, Feb. 24, 2004
  - CITY'S FUZZY MATH -- PAYS $63M FOR $7.6M TUTOR DEAL: PROBE, New York Post, February 9, 2007

Expand the article and include more sources, don't delete it. --Orlady (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a notable subject. Axl (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which subject are you referring to -- the "whole math" debate or the use of the term as a pejorative in politics? TimidGuy (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The political argument (i.e. the latter). Axl (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Create a disambiguation page, as suggested above. Fuzzy math (education), will go to Math wars. Orlady and Axl can create a new article titled Fuzzy math (politics). And Fuzzy math (mathematics) would link to Fuzzy mathematics TimidGuy (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, perhaps transwiki to Wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is just a combination of two English words. I think that the minimum we need for an encyclopaedia article about this phrase is a source which discusses "fuzzy math" as a phrase, not just a source which uses "fuzzy math". -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vaguely a duplicate of math wars and a coatrack for discussions on the 2000 presidential election. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Stifle.Divinediscourse (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~and disambiguate per TimidGuy, with the caveat that Fuzzy math (politics) may not be notable distinct from math wars. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 23:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Delete and redirect per WhatamIdoing, even better. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 23:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Anything notable about this topic is already covered at math wars. Its use a couple of times in 2000 as a political neologism is even less encyclopedic. KleenupKrew (talk) 09:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per KleenupKrew. Good suggestion by TimidGuy Roseapple (talk) 12:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to fuzzy math (politics). Create a new redirect page from fuzzy math to the main meaning, fuzzy mathematics, and put a disambiguation link at the top saying This is not about the concept in politics; for that topic see fuzzy math (politics). Michael Hardy (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fuzzy mathematics with hatnote to Math wars. Merge suitable/non-coatrack-y content to Math wars. Keeping Fuzzy math (politics) separate from Math wars is just asking for a content fork: the politically motivated (mis)use of the term "fuzzy math" is just one skirmish in the math wars of the last 20 years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fuzzy mathematics. Ketsuekigata (talk) 00:22, 24 April 2008 (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.