Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strong monad

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. I hope those editors arguing to Keep this article spend some time now improving it to address issues brought up by editors advocating Deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong monad

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Strong monad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is >90% mathematical notation and diagrams, and minimal general-interest content. Looks like an excerpt from a research paper. WP:NOTTEXTBOOK: article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well-versed in the topic's field. If content is useful for encyclopedia, it might be summarized and moved to Monad (category theory). beefyt (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dratify' - trusting User:Red-tailed hawk that it may be salvageable. - Altenmann >talk 23:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Likely too technical for a general wiki, and to be honest, I don't know what a monad is after reading the article. It's sourced, but this is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We do not delete articles merely because the sources are hard to understand for someone who lacks prerequisite mathematical knowledge. We would not delete Repatriation tax avoidance merely because a group of editors does not understand the concept of a repatriation taxes, nor Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory (the standard foundation of modern math) merely because a group does not understand set theory. If the sources are there, even if the subject might be hard for the average joe to wrap their head around, we don't purge the article merely because we ourselves don't understand the technical sources. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 13:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct. We delete based on notability; which is questioned here. But I did agree with your POV, hence my suggestion to draftify the article until someone makes from it somethin acceptable. Are you ready to do this? - Altenmann >talk 16:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is a "general wiki" in the sense that it covers all topics for which we can find sources, not in the sense that every article has to be completely comprehensible to every random drive-by reader. XOR'easter (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Straw man argument. In AfD we discuss notability according to our criteria. Readability is not an issue. Let me give you a non-"rocket science" example. There are plenty of drummers which had gigs with numerous bands , but they still do not satisfy WP:NMUSIC despite the fact they can be found in numerous sources.- Altenmann >talk 19:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As much as I dislike the text, the WP:GNG is clearly fulfilled: article after article filled with formulas and peer-reviewed. A heady mix of functional programming and quantum computing cannot be expected to be easy to understand (and, for avoidance of doubt, IMHO impossible to actually implement, but I will be happy to be proven wrong on the latter). --Викидим (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC) Retracting. This text appears to be purely category theory-related. Still notable IMHO, but can be explained with proper links and background articles. Draftify. --Викидим (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not understand the rationale for draftifying instead of just keeping. Why is a topic being "purely category theory-related" a problem? If the topic is notable, why can't the improvement work happen in article space? XOR'easter (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see Wikipedia:DRAFTIFY. why can't the improvement work happen in article space? - you tell me. Why nobody cared since 2006? My guess: @dgaf. Recently some admins took a serious issue with poor articles and draftified quite a few of them in my watchlist without bothering with AfD, and guess what? in 50% of cases nobody cared. - Altenmann >talk 19:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Purely category-theory related is not an issue with the subject. Category theory is actually a very basic and therefore relatively easy to explain area of mathematics. Unless quantum computing is involved (and it can be! and I wrongfully thought it is, thus my original remark that things are quite complicated), there is little excuse not to explain things properly here (that is at the level, where a high school student with ability to read diagrams and patience to read the leads of a few adjacent articles, would be able to at least grasp an idea of what a strong monad is). The current article already does link to Monad (category theory), but the latter lacks any plain-language examples, instead deferring to endofunctor that in turn totally lacks any explanation - yet refers to polynomial functor - that in turn completes the tail-loop of links by referring back to endofunctor. It does not have to be like this, some of examples of categories in the Category theory are quite comprehensible, so can be examples of monads (and endofunctors). Викидим (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a good candidate for draftication. For an article that has gone so long without attention, draftification is just a stealth method of slow deletion: wait six months for no more improvement and then delete it as a stale draft. Have the courage of your convictions. If you think it should be deleted, the time is now, not six months from now. If you think it should be cleaned up and kept, then !vote keep so that it can be cleaned up without a looming deadline. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have actually started changing the articles in the series to be more readable by the uninitiated. The first one is Category theory itself, where I am slowly adding easy-to-understand examples to the lead. This is a significant piece of work if WP:OR is to be avoided. That said, you have a point (and even if article is changed, there is an enormous backlog for the articles that are not easy to proofread), although it appears to me that the people who can understand the article now do not need read our text, as they must already know the details well. Anyhow, you have convinced me, I am reverting my vote back to Keep. God willing, I will get to this article within few months. Викидим (talk) 08:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for the record: the result of my editing yesterday could have been predicted (i.e., reverted as "Wikipedia is not a textbook"). I might at some point try to discuss improving the readability on the relevant talk page. My keep vote stands, but now my position WRT this article can be summed up by the famous phrase, "A monad is just a monoid in the category of endofunctors, what's the problem?" (for the avoidance of doubt, I know enough to fully appreciate this joke). Викидим (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
—David Eppstein (talk) 07:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs work, won't be a very popular page even if it gets work, but the available sourcing (see just above) indicates that there's an encyclopedic topic here. XOR'easter (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The concept of the strong monad has been around for a half-century. David has given evidence of multiple in-depth reliable sources discussing the concept over the years and the nLab entry lists more sources, so the concept passes notability requirements per WP:GNG. The content is highly technical, but makes sense as far as I can tell. With notability satisfied and an article with improvable content, I don't see a policy-based reason for deletion. Hence, keep. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:13, 25 July 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Strong_monad&oldid=1237097591"