Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Techno-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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Techno-mathematics

Neologism, OR --fvw * 06:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Ray (talk) 08:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems like a valid subject. Offered by the Lund University and the University of Karlsruhe, to name a few [1] [2].
Keep - I know nothing about mathematics, but this is clearly not Original Research as there are five references. To get round the Neologism (if it is one), perhaps someone could ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics for a better title. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- References don't mean original research, after all research papers have references too. The fact that it is a course name at multiple universities is a more compelling argument to keep. --fvw* 09:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm, hope this doesn't sound like sour grapes, but it's actually a copyvio. Will tag it as such and leave it for someone else to clean up or rewrite. --fvw* 09:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for discovering the problem. :) I have zero familiarity so will not weigh in on this AfD, but I wanted to note that the copyvio issue has been addressed by an IP contributor who rewrote the material. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I suspect this subject has much more to do with mathematics education than mathematics. Ray (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to applied mathematics, which is what this is. This page is the source of the copyvio; that the University of Kigale has come up with a snazzy new name for its app. math. major is nice, but does not justify this waste of space. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Applied mathematics"? This is more about teaching than about mathematics. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Beside the fact the article is currently unusable... it is clear that the topic is merely a non-notable term for a teaching concept that is a minor attempt at attracting students to a single focus of applied mathematics. The title itself is meaningless, specific and is indeed a neologism, one used by a few notable but desperate Universities, and nothing that is soon to enter the mainstream. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 04:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (if copyvio is resolved; if not we're wasting our time). It's not a neologism. The International Council for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (ICIAM, formerly CICIAM) decided to award a 1999 Pioneer Prize to Helmut Neunzert for: "his work over the last twenty years in developing the "techno-mathematics" both as a scientific discipline and as a curriculum, now offered in more than twenty-five universities, and in developing the specialization of industrial mathematics through active consulting and modeling, playing a leading role in the European Consortium for Mathematics in Industry,and founding and directing the Fraunhofer Institute for Techno- and Econo-mathematics at Kaiserslautern." So it looks like the term is about thirty years old. I suspect that there will be enough sources to establish notability; my only worry is that the article may not grow beyond a dictionary definition. A merge to applied mathematics may well be in order. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As far as I can see, the first paragraph (on ethnomathematics, education and dialectics) is not supported by the references, thus Original Research and it should be deleted. My "keep" comment above pertains to the second paragraph, which seems to be about something different. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 16:46, 17 December 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.