Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Given (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 delete. No clear consensus to redirect instead. Sandstein 06:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given (mathematics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prodded and de-prodded. I don't believe there's anything encyclopedic to say about "givens" in mathematics. The word is used in various slightly different ways, such as a hypothesis, or the value of a variable. I don't think these have interesting enough things in common to be worth writing about. I could change my mind if someone shows me some serious work on the subject, granted that there's an actual subject to work on. As for a redirect, I don't see the point as it's an unlikely search term. Trovatore (talk) 08:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.

Comment. As it stands now, this is pretty much a dictionary entry. Would postulate be a plausible redirect target? Or assumption? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said in the nom, I don't see the point of a redirect because it's an unlikely search term. --Trovatore (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As commonly as it is used in mathematics, it doesn't deserve its own article. Inter change able|talk to me 21:17, 29 August 2011
Redirect to Axiom as probable search term. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You think someone is going to type given (mathematics) into the search box? Really? --Trovatore (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. But they can type given math. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Try it. The page we're discussing doesn't show up in the first twenty hits. --Trovatore (talk) 22:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I tried it. The page we're discussing is the only hit. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        What are you talking about? There's a full page of hits, and the page is not there. Here's the link: [1]. --Trovatore (talk) 08:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Typing given math (without return) in the search box shows predictive articles, of which there is only this one. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to axiom. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A simple redirect would be totally inadequate. A standard "dictionary of mathematics" gives 3 different meanings, none of which seem appropriate for individual articles ... and "axiom" is the least realistic target meaning. Melcombe (talk) 09:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford Dictionary of Mathematics defines "given" rather vaguely as "Something which is already known independently, or something which is to be used in the course of a proof." That does not equate to "axiom." -- 202.124.74.35 (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, dicdef. Not enough to write an encyclopedic article about. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question to those who favour redirection to Axiom. Is there any evidence that the term given is actually used in mathematical texts in the technical sense of axiom? I've never seen it used that way, and I fear that this redirection would be misleading. --Lambiam 16:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen it used that way either. -- 202.124.74.35 (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a dictionary definition and we don't do redirects to wiktionary.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Axiom Stuartyeates (talk) 09:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think the definition given within the article and the proposed redirect to axiom are sufficiently accurate, because they don't cover the common meaning of a given of a computational problem in algebra or geometry as being one of the inputs to the problem. The definition given here only covers givens in theorem-proof situations, not in computations. But even with the broader definition there isn't much to say beyond the definition. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:07, 6 September 2011 (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.