Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boy's surface/Proofs


 * 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 transf e r to Wikibooks. east. 718 at 08:42, December 22, 2007
 * Import complete: The Book of Mathematical Proofs/Boy's surface – Mike . lifeguard  &#124; @en.wb 17:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Boy's surface/Proofs

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A mathematical proof is not necessarily encylopedic. These involve some simple rearrangement of formula so not notable as an interesting/unusual proof. Salix alba (talk) 09:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy%27s_surface/Proofs
 * delete here is no reference to the proof, whilst true the proof does not meet wikipedia verifiability criteria and this particular proof could be original research. --Salix alba (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Academic topics like this don't fit existing criteria very well, but I'd say that since the object itself is notable so too are its most important mathematical properties. I don't think subjective judgments of what's "interesting" or "unusual" enter in upon the determination. I also don't think proofs of non-trivial properties of non-trivial objects should ever be deleted. The casual reader need not peruse these since they are on a subpage, after all. Furthermore, the customary reasons that we sometimes curtail our coverage (POV, verifiability, etc.) don't really apply to pure knowledge subject domains like mathematics. deranged bulbasaur  09:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not a subpage. At the top left of this AfD, you will see "< Articles for deletion", because this page is a subpage. Now go to Boy's surface/Proofs and you will see there is no such link to Boy's surface. For all Wikipedia purposes, Boy's surface/Proofs is counted as a separate article which happens to have a forward slash in the title. A topic has to meet WP:N in order to have a separate article on it: it is not enough that it is connected to another notable topic. If you want a subpage, move this to Talk:Boy's surface/Proofs. Geometry guy 11:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What about these 43 similar stand alone proofs then ? "This category contains all pages which provide mathematical proofs of adjunct mathematics and physics articles. It is currently an experimental vehicle to see how we might be able to provide proofs and details for math articles without cluttering up the main article itself. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Proofs for current discussion. The idea is "experimental" in that its a proposal for one way that we might be able to deal with this.  Pages in this category should generally be subpages of an article entitled ArticleName/Proof or ArticleName/Proofs."  Nick mallory (talk) 12:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This "experiment" has been running for more than two years. By and large the decent articles in the category are the ones with proper article titles, not the ones on the so-called subpages, because treating proofs as subpages discourages editors from writing coherent self-contained articles on them. Geometry guy 13:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It does not have to meet WP:N, since that's only a guideline. I readily admit that this doesn't meet it. What I am saying is that items like this constitute an exceptional case (probably the only one) for which the guideline isn't very helpful. deranged bulbasaur  12:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think I can just move pages across namespaces willy-nilly like that, else fully 80% of the band articles would end up as actual subpages in some obscure corner of the Portal namespace. deranged bulbasaur  12:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm against making general policy statements about articles on proofs. There is another AfD going on (for Totient function/Proofs) at which it is argued that proofs are not encyclopedic. I disagree: they can be. I similarly disagree that they should be a blanket exception to WP:N. If the proof is notable, write a decent article on it. If it is not, don't hide that fact by calling it a "subpage" or an "experiment". As for this particular case, it is rather shaky on WP:NOT as well. Geometry guy 13:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Just as Salix alba remarked, no encyclopaedic value here, and I don't even see any potential for it. Arcfrk (talk) 11:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The proof was moved from the Boy's surface page, presumably because that article was getting too long. Boy's surfaces are one of those weird things which is almost impossible to imagine but can actually be made, in that they're single sided surfaces with no edges.  It's bizarre, like a sort of 3d mobius strip, but any proof of their properties is certainly not trivial.  I'm sure the nominator knows more maths than me but it seems to me that the mathematical proofs are an intrinsic part of the subject.  It's as interesting to a mathematician or topologist as baseball statistics are to someone who likes baseball but if 'it's interesting' isn't a reason to keep then 'it's not interesting' can't be a reason to delete.  Nick mallory (talk) 12:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This content could be transwikied or merged, but there is no case here for an independent article on WP. Geometry guy 23:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per my more detailed remarks at Articles for deletion/Totient function/Proofs. I feel strongly that detailed proofs and proof articles have a place in Wikipedia, but only when a case can be made for the importance of the proof itself and not only of the fact that it proves; in other cases, references to sources with proofs or brief suggestions within the article about the nature of the proof are sufficient. So I think this should only be kept if sources can be found attesting to the value of the specific proofs presented here. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nick mallory, though the article could use cleanup to address David Eppstein's points. Mathematics requires proofs; a better argument could be made to delete the main article than the proofs article. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Geometry Guy and David Eppstein. -- Dominus (talk) 04:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikibooks. Shame to waste this much work on the grounds it's too trivial for an encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nick Mallory. As a non-expert in the field I found the proofs sufficiently elementary, informative and interesting that I would consider their inclusion in the article Boy's surface itself to be warranted. However, their sheer length means that they would clutter up the page and constitute a distraction to readers who don't want to be bothered reading them.  In my opinion this article and the Totient function/Proofs article are perfect illustrations of why using pseudo-subpages for proofs can (sometimes) be A Good Idea. The function they serve is something like that of an extended footnote&mdash;namely, they provide extra information for the interested reader but can be ignored by those who don't wish to explore the topic to that level of depth. I don't find the arguments for deletion or merger based on the guideline WP:NOTE to be at all persuasive.  The advantages of placing these lengthy proofs on a separate page that is accessed via a hyperlink from the main article seem to me to be eminently sufficient to be covered by the occasional exception clause of the guideline. &mdash;David Wilson (talk · cont) 07:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to The Book of Mathematical Proofs per PMAnderson. Not in our scope, but it's in theirs. Grace notes T § 17:11, 20 December 2007 (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.