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.

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 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[edit]

List of important publications in cryptography[edit]

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

Inherently original research. Compare WP:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in computer science (2nd nomination). Was previously kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in networks and security but I think this is worth a reevaluation a decade later. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Mathematics, and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete such a list can never have a policy-compliant WP:LISTCRIT because "importance" is subjective. BrigadierG (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One alternative is a move to List of publications in cryptography without "important", while applying Wikipedia notability as the WP:LISTCRIT.
Also, the same discussion is applicable to List of important publications in science, List of important publications in chemistry, List of important publications in medicine, List of important publications in mathematics, List of important publications in physics, List of important publications in statistics, List of important publications in data science, List of important publications in geology, List of important publications in economics, List of important publications in philosophy, and List of important publications in pedagogy. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not workable, few individual publications have an article so it would be unclear what should be listed. Reywas92^Talk 20:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Reywas92: I see dozens of the entries in these lists with standalone Wikipedia articles. That's more than enough and is a clear criterion. See List of important publications in mathematics, List of important publications in physics, and List of important publications in economics for example. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh sorry! If you meant cryptography specifically, then yes there are too few. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like pretty much all of these date from the really early days of Wikipedia, well before the project had clearly defined guidance for list criteria. I don't think any of them are very good articles and probably would be in favour of a healthy dose of WP:TNT. I think List of publications of X with a notability criteria is the way to go - but that can't happen without blowing up all of these articles and starting over. BrigadierG (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    
    Yes, I meant the nominated article but most others are also short on wikilinks. Even those that have articles, though, are almost all books or very old or written by the most famous scientists. Practically no journal articles would ever have an article. I don't think a list of primarily textbooks would be good content for a list of publications. However, if the criteria is simply being a publication with a WP article, that could also end up including books that aren't important yet someone happened to find some reviews and write and article. While I agree that "important" is subjective, are there actually any problems with these lists? Have people been arguing about what should be on them at all? Reywas92^Talk 22:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a separate article at Bibliography of cryptography (which I moved from Books on cryptography). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leave-one-out error[edit]

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

This article does not belong in an encyclopedia. It appears that what is described in the article does not correlate one-to-one with the title of the article. The article describes "stability" of leave-one-out error, whereas the title of the article is leave-one-out error. The title could be changed appropriately, to "stability of leave-one-out error", but then it would be even more clear that an article like this does not belong in an encyclopedia. Looking at WP:NOT, Wikipedia is just not supposed to be a textbook or a scientific journal, where this article might belong. It is too technical, it does not sufficiently define the math terms, and is overall unreadable. Even for someone who is relatively familiar with this method, this article just does not convey anything meaningful. A reader who wants to learn about this in such detail will not look in an encyclopedia, they will look in research papers and textbooks on the method. Manyyassin (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Manyyassin (talk)

Delete inscrutable article. "Leave-one-out cross validation" is discussed at Cross-validation (statistics)#Leave-one-out cross-validation; I'm not sure if this is supposed to be a different name for that concept, or something else. The only google hits for "leave one out error" (specifically) seem to be about a different topic in machine learning. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this is a half-hashed synopsis of the sole reference, which is a journal article that proposes the definitions that are here but not in Cross-validation (statistics)#Leave-one-out cross-validation. WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The delsort notice does not belong at the top of the AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unclear, redundant article with a title that is an evident neologism. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics education in New York[edit]

(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]

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)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 [1], 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  I don't understand this proposal/question; what content do you want to merge where, and rename what to what? --JBL (talk) 00:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Keep The text needs citation and probably cleaning, but it's not beyond repair, and the topic is an encyclopedic one. Redirecting to the Regent Examinations would be a bad move, because math education is more general than just the Regent Exams in algebra and geometry (for example), and likewise, they have Regent Exams on topics other than mathematics. XOR'easter (talk) 02:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics proposed deletions[edit]

Mathematics miscellany for deletion[edit]

Mathematics redirects for discussion[edit]