Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Degeneracy (mathematics)


 * 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The result was withdrawn by nominator. (Non-admin closure)  " Pepper "  @ 16:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Degeneracy (mathematics)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Degeneracy is not a notable topic in mathematics. The present article is just a miscellaneous rag-bag of uncited examples which have little or nothing in common. This article fails WP:GNG. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC) WITHDRAWN following clear consensus that there is something of value in the topic (even if it the present content is not it). &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 6.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 17:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. We have something like 300 inbound links to this article (including via redirects such as "non-degenerate").  That's a pretty good indicator that degeneracy is a notable topic in mathematics.  The lede makes quite clear that degeneracy (and "degenerate case") does have a particular meaning in mathematics; which the examples then fulfill in their different ways.  Certainly there's work on the article that wouldn't go amiss.  But there is a significant concept here to present, so the topic should definitely be kept.  Jheald (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The Encyclopaedia of Mathematics has numerous entries for various types of degeneracy in its index. Andrew D. (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep a cursory search of google scholar will reveal numerous sources substantiating notability. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree that the article is a stub, but degeneracy is a broad concept, widely used in applied mathematics, including probability theory (see, for example Degenerate distribution) and physics (see, for example Degenerate energy level). Although it is probably impossible to give a general formal definition, mathematicians generally agree that it is a single concept that is transversal to most mathematics (dimension, and singularity (mathematics) are similar broad concepts that have many formal definitions, which depend on the context and the area of mathematics, but are strongly inter-related; see dimension of an algebraic variety for an example of many nearly equivalent definition of dimension.). D.Lazard (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The concept described in the article does not have a single crisp mathematical definition, and the article itself is in dire need of sourcing, but neither of these is a good reason for deletion. Degeneracy is a significant and well-known concept throughout mathematics, so we should improve our article on it, not eliminate it. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Suggestion. If there is no coherent topic but there are a good many notable instances, then would a disambig page be more sensible? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, because the commonality between these topics is conceptual rather than based purely on similarity of names. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and do not change to a disambiguation. Lots of hits in titles both on Google and Google scholar. Handling and checking of degenerate cases is something you have to do all the time. Also, degeneracy is an overall concept of being a very small or boring case, so turning this into a disambiguation is not appropriate. Happy Squirrel (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2016 (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.