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.
- Note that 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 links to other discussions ( prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Mathematics.
- 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:| watch |
938749233
- 938749233 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of notability, fails WP:NNUMBER with zero interesting mathematical properties. Chaotic Enby ( talk · contribs) 02:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: per nom. Does not meet WP:NNUMBER and the only source is a random census count. '''[[ User:CanonNi]]''' ( talk • contribs) 03:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Would be pretty surprised if this doesn't SNOW. Esolo5002 ( talk) 04:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Fails WP:NNUMBER as a number with no discovered interesting properties. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: "One number found in a census count" doesn't get you an article, no matter how hard you try. This isn't notable. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per all of the above. Sadustu Tau ( talk) 20:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 19:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete A look at the actual page in question does not find this number — only the consecutive numbers 938, 749, and 233 on one row (the first one labeled "Persons under 18 years"). – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 20:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- SNOW delete Completely unnotable, I would PROD this article if I could but now that we are having this AfD we should SNOW delete. Air on White ( talk) 04:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Someone should take a look through the author's list of contributions and see whether there is anything at all that suggests that they are WP:HERE. -- JBL ( talk) 20:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Non-monotonic dice
- Non-monotonic dice ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of any notability for this concept. None of the three sources are reliable or (worse) even mention "non-monotonic dice", which is understandable because there are no sources for the concept "non-monotonic dice" [1]. The concept of non-transitive dice, which is mentioned by the references, is already covered in Intransitive dice, so it's not as if this article discusses an uncovered topic by the wrong name. Fram ( talk) 07:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 07:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: I found the David and Goliath dice interesting and no less remarkable than other sets of dice that are subjects of articles. Unfortunately I can find no references about them, or non-monotonic dice more generally, except for the page selling them (which is currently linked in the article) and what appears to be a Facebook page of the people who made or discovered them. If reliable sources publish something about these dice then I would like to see the information return to Wikipedia but at the moment I don't think there are sufficient sources.
Mgp28 (
talk) 10:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Mgp28 and Fram, thank you for the comments. The motivation for creating this page is the following:
- Before creating this page I considered including David vs Goliath dice as a variation under the Intransitive dice page (which I believe would be relatively unproblematic), however David vs Goliath dice are not intransitive by definition despite having many similities. Do you believe it would be better to include a section under intransitive dice called "Variations to intransitive dice" where David vs Goliath dice are explained?. Trojan.chess ( talk) 12:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- No, because the David vs. Goliath dice are not notable either, the claims about it are not picked up or commented upon by any reliable sources. At the moment, it doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia.
Fram (
talk) 12:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply Fram. I agree there are very little publically available sources online concerning David vs Goliath dice, however there are some. I would like to highlight Mgp28 comment that these are "no less remarkable than other sets of dice that are subjects of articles" and I would add that on the Intransitive Dice page most of the dice sets cited there and the properties atributed to them have no source at all (see: mininmal alterations set, numbered 1 to 24, corrected grime dice, intransitive 4-sided, intransitive 12-sided). I think this is fine since these are mathematical objects that require less external validation than the average topic covered on wikipedia.
- My take is that either David vs Goliath should be included as a variant under Intransitive Dice (if not a full page) or the entire Intransitive Dice page should be cropped down for lack of external sources. My opinion is for the former rather than the latter.
Trojan.chess (
talk) 14:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- "mathematical objects that require less external validation than the average topic covered on wikipedia." Er, that goes against the most basic policies. Perhaps the other page needs trimming, but that's not an argument to include (further) novelties without good sources. And no, there are no good sources about these dice, never mind anything serious verifying the claims about them. Fram ( talk) 14:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Trojan, I do think the dice are interesting. But when I come to read a Wikipedia article I expect the information to be reliable. That means that the blurb on a website selling dice is not sufficient. And while you might be perfectly qualified to tell me that the information is true, the rest of us have no way of knowing that, which is why there are rules against original research. It is perfectly feasible that these dice could be covered in reliable sources -- the intransitive dice are covered in publications such as The American Mathematical Monthly and Mathematics Magazine. But until they are, I don't think they have a place here, either on their own page or as part of another one. And if the descriptions of other dice are also original research, I think they will also need to be removed. Mgp28 ( talk) 17:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- No, because the David vs. Goliath dice are not notable either, the claims about it are not picked up or commented upon by any reliable sources. At the moment, it doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia.
Fram (
talk) 12:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Does a shop selling them even count as a valid source? Sadustu Tau ( talk) 14:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Either delete per nom or redirect to
intransitive dice.
Sadustu Tau (
talk) 14:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Why would we redirect a term which is not in use elsewhere and seems to be an invention of the page creator?
Fram (
talk) 14:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Now that you mention it, looking up the term only brings up that article...in which case just delete. Sadustu Tau ( talk) 20:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Why would we redirect a term which is not in use elsewhere and seems to be an invention of the page creator?
Fram (
talk) 14:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as an apparent neologism for an invented concept. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 20:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete – a nice mathematical curiosity, but I can't find any "real" references beyond the Dice Shop — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 10:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete a mildly interesting variation of intransitive dice, but not one that is discussed anywhere else under this name. Walsh90210 ( talk) 21:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
Mathematics education in New York
- Mathematics education in New York ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Almost entirely unsourced and out-of-date. Insufficiently distinct from Mathematics education in the United States. Possibly could be redirected to New York Regents Examinations. Walsh90210 ( talk) 02:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and New York. Walsh90210 ( talk) 02:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 11:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. It is true that the present article is very poorly sourced (I am not sure about the datedness but willing to take the nominator's word for it). However, the content looks to me like it's all true and sourceable in principle. Indeed, it's clear that this is a notable topic: there were major changes to the structure of New York State's mathematics courses and exams in the last 25 years, and they received widespread coverage at the time. For example, here's one article about the 2007 change to Algebra-Geometry-Algebra 2
[2],
here's an article about aligning math requirements to Common Core, and
here's an article about one particular administration of an exam that spends several paragraphs discussing various changes to state policies over time, as in the article we're discussing. These various changes described in our article were mostly specific to New York State, making
Mathematics education in the United States an unacceptable merge/redirect target, and I see no advantage to merging them into an article about Regents exams in general (better would be links out from that article to separate articles on the various subject areas it covers, when there is sufficient sourcing to permit that). --
JBL (
talk) 20:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps merging this with some material from New York Regents Examinations and renaming would be an improvement? Walsh90210 ( talk) 21:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Canonical transformation (disambiguation) (via WP:PROD on 25 May 2024)
- Atriphtaloid (via WP:PROD on 20 May 2024)
- カ・ア・セメンジャーエフ → Konstantin Adolfovic Semendyayev ( talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/ retarget/ delete ]
- セメンジャーエフ → Konstantin Adolfovic Semendyayev ( talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/ retarget/ delete ]
- Κ. Α. Σεμεντγιάγιεφ → Konstantin Adolfovic Semendyayev ( talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/ retarget/ delete ]
- Κονσταντίν Αντόλφοβιτς Σεμεντγιάγιεφ → Konstantin Adolfovic Semendyayev ( talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/ retarget/ delete ]
- Κονσταντίν Α. Σεμεντγιάγιεφ → Konstantin Adolfovic Semendyayev ( talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/ retarget/ delete ]
- 谢缅佳耶夫 → Konstantin Adolfovic Semendyayev ( talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/ retarget/ delete ]
Collection of bad WP:RFOREIGN. The target is not Chinese, Greek or Japanese and seems to have no connection to the three countries. I excluded all Latin alphabet redirects to the same target from this nom, but they definitely need some scrutiny. I don't have the knowledge to tell which of the multiple romanizations used is correct or not and I want to avoid a WP:TRAINWRECK so, if anyone else wants to deal with that mess, be my guest. Nickps ( talk) 22:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Russia, Mathematics, and Engineering. Nickps ( talk) 22:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The following translits are also not really useful due to diacritics: Konstantin Adolfovič Semendjajew, Konstantin Adol'fovič Semendjaev, Konstantin Adolʹfovič Semendjaev. -- Викидим ( talk) 22:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Some transliteration schemes include diacritics, some don't. Unfortunately, there is no one universal scheme and there have been many changes over the decades, so if we want people to get successfully redirected to our article no matter what variant they find in their texts we have to cover them all. Redirects are cheap. --
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 03:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- There are thousands of active languages in the world, so we will have to put a limit somewhere. The redirects that an English speaker might find useful are the ones they can likely experience in English-language literature, this includes Cyrillics and various transliterations into English. English alphabet does not include diacritics, so transliteration using it is highly unlikely to be useful to them. Викидим ( talk) 16:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Some transliteration schemes include diacritics, some don't. Unfortunately, there is no one universal scheme and there have been many changes over the decades, so if we want people to get successfully redirected to our article no matter what variant they find in their texts we have to cover them all. Redirects are cheap. --
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 03:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. These are all spellings of the name actually used in various foreign-language publications of the author now or at some point in the past. Without them, people using foreign-language editions of these books will have almost no chance to find our article about the author. That's what redirects are used for per
WP:REDIR. If we delete them we gain nothing, but only make it more difficult or next to impossible for our readers to use Wikipedia successfully for their purposes, in particular in case of names originating in foreign languages. --
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 03:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- This Wikipedia is written for English speakers. For them, these redirects are very obscure synonyms and therefore don't need to exist. If lots of English speakers read the Chinese version of the subject's work (or are familiar enough with it to search for his name in that language), a redirect from his name is Chinese would be appropriate but this has not been demonstrated. Nickps ( talk) 12:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Shouldn't those people using foreign-language editions of the books be using... I dunno... the
foreign-language
versions of
Wikipedia? If the Japanese, Chinese, and Russian versions of the wiki don't have information on Konstantin, the answer isn't to put a
foreign-language redirect on the English wiki-- it's to translate the English wiki's page to the target language, and put it on the foreign-language version of the site.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 17:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- ...it only just occurred to me that the redirects at question are Chinese, Japanese, and Greek, not Chinese, Japanese, and Russian. Got lightly confused because the target article we're talking about is a Russian name. That said... We've got a Greek Wikipedia, too. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( talk) 17:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as per WP:RLANG and my comment(s) above. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( talk) 17:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as argued in WP:RLANG. 104.232.119.107 ( talk) 20:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per RLANG, redirects are intended for English-language speakers, and people searching terms from foreign-language publications should use the Wikipedia editions in their respective languages. Chaotic Enby ( talk · contribs) 21:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- イ・エヌ・ブロンシュテイン → Ilya Nikolaevich Bronshtein ( talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/ retarget/ delete ]
WP:RFOREIGN. The target has no mention of Japan or the subject's relation with it. Nickps ( talk) 12:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Russia, Engineering, and Mathematics. Nickps ( talk) 12:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- Lenticel ( talk) 00:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Retarget to #P as, at the very least, a plausible typo. Frank Anchor 15:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)