Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elementary proof


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Elementary proof

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unclear as to notability, seems little more than a turn of phrase with no consistent meaning. Leon (talk) 11:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

To be a little clearer, the meaning here isn't ostensibly too similar to here and neither to here. Whilst the expression appears quite a lot, this does not make it notable. Surely "elegant proof" comes up quite a lot also, but that's not worthy of an article.--Leon (talk) 11:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Those links do all give the same definition - the latter two are just special cases of it as are applicable to that particular proof. The definition is consistent, just a little vague - it's one of those "I know it when I see it" things (in special cases it can be defined precisely). This could just be merged into mathematical proof, but I think there is enough to say to warrant a whole article. Some discussion of other elementary proofs would be nice, as would a discussion of why mathematicians like elementary proofs (with some quotes). Some history of the term and of the quest to find such proofs would also be good. I think if all that were written there would be more than enough to make a good article. --Tango (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep definition is consistent; subject is notable; article is well written and sourced. Gandalf61 (talk) 22:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. As regards notability, the remark by Goldfeld that the "elementary proof of the prime number theorem was quite a sensation at the time" seems enough for me. And (with Tango) I see the definitions pointed to above as being consistent. Paul August &#9742; 15:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Regarded as a meaningful term and regularly used by highly competent mathematicians, whose judgement shouldn't be second-guessed here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Google scholar finds about 1000 papers with "elementary proof" in their titles. That's way more than enough. I added a couple more references that are less about specific individual elementary proofs and more about the general topic of elementary proof. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: The nominator's assertion that "elegant proof" is not worthy of an article is far from self-evident, to say the least. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed - we have mathematical beauty, which elegant proof could easily redirect to. --Tango (talk) 00:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. For a good time, see the talk page for the corresponding Conservapedia article for proprietor Andrew Schlafly's doubts about the existence of &radic;&minus;1 and his theory that an elementary proof is one that can't be broken down into smaller subatomic particles. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I wouldn't recommend Schlafly's judgement.--Leon (talk) 06:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If the issue is possible different meanings, one could limit the article to elementary proofs in number theory, which is to say proofs that use no complex analysis. That meaning of "elementary proof" is easy to source to lots of number theory texts. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 01:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although the term isn't well-defined, it is widely used. The article could reflect several interpretations of the term, with sources. --Robin (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * keep (tiny COI disclaimer: I started this article) This is a term that is frequently used especially in the historical context of the Prime Number Theorem. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Two issues: (1) It's not a precisely defined mathematical concept; it's a cultural thing. That's not a problem if the article is up-front about that. (2) In regard to the prime number theorem the use of the term is traditional.  What it means in other contexts is another matter.  Maybe the thing should be two separate articles: elementary proof (prime number theorem) and elementary proof (mathematics (or something like that)). Michael Hardy (talk) 06:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this agrees with what I was saying: we could focus primarily on the meaning in number theory, where things are more clear, and mention lower in the article that "elementary" is used in other fields as well, with varying meanings. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 10:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Further Comment I'm prepared to accept that I might be wrong on the subject not being notable at all; however, I fail to see why it might warrant two distinct articles for the (at least) two usages of the word. See page 13 of this for some discussion of usages.--Leon (talk) 06:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think two articles are needed; we can cover everything in one place and it will make more sense that way. Throwing the unusual stuff into a separate article almost always leads to that second article being poorly-organized and hard to motivate. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 10:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, one article is better. I don't see why something not being precisely defined should prevent it having an article; the article should just explain the definition and why it is vague and what disagreement, if any, there is about it. --Tango (talk) 13:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Its elementary, my dear.  JBsupreme (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Whichever horse's ass nominated this page for deletion should clearly never be allowed near the deletion template again. Having said that, the way things are run around here, I expect the page to be removed regardless. ObsessiveMathsFreak (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your foul language is completely uncalled-for. Please be WP:CIVIL. --Robin (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Obsessive: Please refactor your personal attack. Further, given what seems like a clear, well reasoned consensus to keep, your "prediction" that the closing admin will delete is unfounded and inflammatory (in a self-defeating, waive a red handkerchief in a bull's face sort of way). —Finell (Talk) 05:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: A suitably short article on a widely used term; it isn't the article's fault that the term's definition is fuzzy, and the article discusses the fuzziness. Decently sourced. It could, like most articles, be improved, but there is no good reason to delete it. —Finell (Talk) 05:02, 31 October 2009 (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.