Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Mathematics

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Mathematics. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Mathematics|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Mathematics. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Mathematics/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Mathematics

BGG correspondence

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV so fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I disagree that the topic is not notable. It is an important instance of Koszul duality. A quick Google search also shows there are a plenty of coverages in literature. —- Taku (talk) 11:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google Scholar claims to find "about 267" hits for this exact phrase, and 22 publications where it appears in the title. MathSciNet finds fewer, only 28 hits (because it is searching a brief review or summary of each paper, not its full text), but still with 10 in the title. The 10 from MathSciNet appear to be the work of at least 7 distinct research groups. Either way, there is enough to convince me that this meets WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe this is notable due to the amount of publications it is referenced in. Also, I would say that it does meet WP:SIGCOV because no original research is needed to extract the content. — AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 00:27, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Differentiable vector–valued functions from Euclidean space

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

Differentiable vector–valued functions from Euclidean space has interrelated issues. I'm not able to find other sources than the sole one that the article cites (F. Trèves' book on topological vector spaces). I think inasmuch as it is different from just, multivariable differential calculus, it is not a notable topic—in that sense, it may be seen a content fork, where the page is about an obscure TVS approach to a well-known topic that probably doesn't merit coverage on the article about the latter. It is also written in WP:NOTTEXTBOOK-like style, quite closesly paraphrasing Trèves. For example, the portion starting at Differentiable vector–valued functions from Euclidean space#Space of Ck functions corresponds tightly to the portion of Trèves starting at Notation 40.1; see an example of this below:

Article:

Suppose $\Omega _{1}\subseteq \Omega _{2}\subseteq \cdots$ is a sequence of relatively compact open subsets of $\Omega$ whose union is $\Omega$ and that satisfy ${\overline {\Omega _{i}}}\subseteq \Omega _{i+1}$ for all $i.$ Suppose that $\left(V_{\alpha }\right)_{\alpha \in A}$ is a basis of neighborhoods of the origin in $Y.$ Then for any integer $\ell <k+1,$ the sets: ${\mathcal {U}}_{i,\ell ,\alpha }:=\left\{f\in C^{k}(\Omega ;Y):\left(\partial /\partial p\right)^{q}f(p)\in U_{\alpha }{\text{ for all }}p\in \Omega _{i}{\text{ and all }}q\in \mathbb {N} ^{n},|q|\leq \ell \right\}$ form a basis of neighborhoods of the origin for $C^{k}(\Omega ;Y)$ as $i,$ $\ell ,$ and $\alpha \in A$ vary in all possible ways.

Trèves:

Consider a sequence $\Omega _{1}\subset \Omega _{2}\subset \dots \subset \Omega _{j}\subset \dots$ of relatively compact open subsets of $Y$ whose union is equal to $Y$ , an arbitrary integer $l<k+1$ , a basis of neighborhoods of zero in $E$ , [namely] $\{U_{\alpha }\}$ . As $j,l$ and $\alpha$ vary in all possible ways, the subsets of $C^{k}(Y;E)$ , ${\mathcal {U}}_{j,l,\alpha }=\left\{{\underline {f}}:\left(\partial /\partial y\right)^{q}{\underline {f}}(y)\in U_{\alpha }{\text{ for all }}y\in \Omega _{j}{\text{ and all }}q\in \mathbb {N} ^{n},|q|\leq l\right\},$ form a basis of neighborhoods of zero for the $C^{k}$ topology.

ByVarying | talk 02:49, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I do not agree with your assertion about a lack of noteworthiness. Also, the topic is substantially different from multivariate calculus. Topological vector spaces are certainly noteworthy, and since differentiability is a corner stone in analysis, it is clear, that differentiable functions with values in such spaces are also noteworthy. The classical definition of differentiability is based on norms (see, for instance, Jean Dieudonné's textbook "Foundations of Modern Analysis"). This classical approach does not work for functions with values in topological vector spaces. So this article has very little to do with multivariate differential calculus. It is a keep. 51.154.152.231 (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I say notable, I'm talking about WP:N. Being tangentially related to notable topics doesn't make something notable; substantial coverage in RS does. ByVarying | talk 00:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some^[1]^[2] Advanced Calculus texts use the approach of maps between finite dimensional vector spaces. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge it seems like a content issue and the deletion is not need to solve such an issue. Perhaps the article should be merged into some other articles? —- Taku (talk) 10:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Cook, James S. (Fall 2013). Lecture Notes for Advanced Calculus (PDF). Liberty University - Department of Mathematics. Retrieved April 2, 2025.
^ LOOMIS, LYNN H.; STERNBERG, SHLOMO (1989). Advanced Calculus (PDF) (Revised ed.). Jones and Bartlett. Retrieved April 2, 2025.

K-dron

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

Fails to meet WP:CRITERIA per lack of supported sources in Google Books and Scholars; only one or two. Some possible plagiarism detected in [1], which translates from Polish to English. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Mathematically this is not of significance but the question is whether we can find enough coverage of this as a design element to make up for that. Skipping all Kapusta-authored sources as non-independent, the Górska source is independent but does not provide in-depth coverage, and neither does Moskal, "Virtual and Real: K-dron and light", in SIGGRAPH 2004, despite its title. Other sources I looked at, that mention K-drons but without in-depth coverage of the shape itself, are Żarinow's "Recepcja scenografii w Polsce wczoraj i dziś", Możdżyński's "Naukowe Fascynacje Sztuki. Przegląd Arbitralny", Orzechowski's "Teaching Drawing, Painting and Sculpture at the Faculty of Architecture of the Warsaw University of Technology, classics and modernity", Smith's "From here to infinity" [2], and Kraus's All the Art That's Fit to Print [3]. [4] and [5] have some depth but I am skeptical of their independence and reliability. The Kapproff book is independent, reliably published, and with in-depth coverage, but it is only one source; we need multiple such sources. [6] is paywalled so I could not check its depth. So for now to me this is borderline, but with one more source as good as the Kapproff book I could be pushed to a weak keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Lubański source might not be that elusive additional source for David Eppstein. It talks about things already written at https://msl.org.pl/k-dron-janusz-kapusta such as the co-authored paper with Stanisław Kwapień; and adds a couple of tidbits like a puzzle piece, a 3D map of the planet, and the use as the logo in a 2018 fair. It also quotes the inventor. Uncle G (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Unsure about sourcing, but commenting that I would be very surprised if a design element popular enough to have a monument constructed of it was non-notable. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rhombic hectotriadiohedron

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

Fails meeting WP:NOTABILITY. No reliable sources in books or journals mentions about such solid. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:30, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- it's discussed in the first reference and also is built into Glenn Davis's R zonohedron package , so it's actually studied. It took me a while to find it in the cited source because find in page didn't work, but it's definitely in there, and not just mentioned. Central and Adams (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Central and Adams I'm still not convinced this may help keep the article with the given source. Might need books and journals per WP:RS. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This solid is has received coverage by multiple reliable sources that contain information included in this article. I do believe that this page meets notability guidelines. Cyrobyte (talk) 05:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyrobyte "do believe that this meets..." Can you show reliable sources of books and journals? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 10:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first source in the article [7], George W. Hart's website and this journal article: [8]. Cyrobyte (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another journal article. This one was a little hard to find because the author calls it an equilateral dodecazonohedron instead of the terms listed in this article, but it's the same little guy: Twenty Questions on Zonogons, Zonohedra, and Zonoids (PDF warning!). The author is Anton Haanegraf and the journal is Structural Topology, which includes both László Fejes Tóth and Branko_Grünbaum on its editorial board, so it's legit. Central and Adams (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Will add this to the article. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As defined in this article, this is merely a zonohedron with 12 generators that happen to be in general position (no three coplanar). There is nothing special here about having 12 generators or having $2{\tbinom {12}{2}}$ faces. Unless one imposes a restriction on symmetry, there are far more than two combinatorial types of zonohedra with this many generators and faces. The first source given as a reference in this article, while not providing significant depth of coverage of this specific choice of parameters, also lists three different combinatorial types with octahedral symmetry, contradicting the bulk of the content of the nominated article which mostly goes on at length about how there are only two. Not independently notable from zonohedron and no content worth merging there. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zonohedron: per David Eppstein. Not just per his !vote here, but also per his 1996 paper on the subject. Owen× ☎ 17:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 20:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics proposed deletions

William Raoul Reagle Transue (via WP:PROD on 26 March 2025)
~~Truncated triangular pyramid number (via WP:PROD on 11 March 2025)~~

Mathematics miscellany for deletion

Mathematics redirects for discussion

[1] Cook, James S. (Fall 2013). Lecture Notes for Advanced Calculus (PDF). Liberty University - Department of Mathematics. Retrieved April 2, 2025.

[2] LOOMIS, LYNN H.; STERNBERG, SHLOMO (1989). Advanced Calculus (PDF) (Revised ed.). Jones and Bartlett. Retrieved April 2, 2025.

[1]

[2]