Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Mathematics

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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:
Purge page cache watch

Mathematics[edit]

938749233[edit]

938749233 (edit | 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)[reply]

Delete per all of the above. Sadustu Tau (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-monotonic dice[edit]

Non-monotonic dice (edit | 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)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      "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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    Does a shop selling them even count as a valid source? Sadustu Tau (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete per nom or redirect to intransitive dice. Sadustu Tau (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Mathematics education in New York[edit]

Mathematics education in New York (edit | 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)[reply]

Mathematics proposed deletions[edit]

Mathematics miscellany for deletion[edit]

Mathematics redirects for discussion[edit]

This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 30. (edit | history)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Mathematics&oldid=1226521341"