Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esquisse d' un Programme


 * 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The result was   keep, nomination withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Esquisse d&

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article has little to no context (I personally am not sure what it's about), is very confusing and quite poorly written, and appears to contain large quantities of original research, especially in the last paragraph. I can't see why it's notable, but I think that's due to the concerns above. Has been speedied once for no context, but is longer now, so I'm nominating it for discussion. A le_Jrb talk 18:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - OK, clearly notable. Lack of context becomes the issue for me, but it'd be great if the article could be addressed for keeping. A le_Jrb talk  18:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I am withdrawing the request due to the spree of improvements made by people - at least it's possible to tell what it is now, for someone who knows little about the subject. I can't recall how to close these early, so someone else can. Cheers, A le_Jrb talk  20:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure, but I think every uninvolved editor can close the AfD per WP:SNOW now. No admin needed, and since it's such an obvious case even "uninvolved" doesn't seem necessary. But perhaps it's better to keep it open for a while to get even more improvements. :-) --Hans Adler (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just saying I can't remember how. It now has context, so I'm satisfied it's OK - I'll leave it for others to decide :). A le_Jrb talk  21:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The Esquisse is the subject of at least three books, two of which are in the references.  It's unquestionably notable.  The article badly needs attention, though.  Richard Pinch (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Not being knowledgable in the field, I tagged it for attention from an expert.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Richard is right. The article needs to outline (in the lead section perhaps) why the program was important, and support that with inline citations from the third-party sources which are already present in references section. I find it a bit shocking that is was speedily deleted per A1, but I haven't seen the previous versions. VG &#x260E; 18:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The version I deleted is here. It had been speedily deleted earlier as well. I still find the context very much lacking, but Rather than delete again, I solicited opinions at WikiProject Mathematics. Frank  |  talk  19:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No offense, but accusing a newbie of being a POV pusher based on an article you don't even understand is extremely WP:BITEy. It's one of the reasons why there's a dearth of experts in many fields here. VG &#x260E; 22:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No offense taken, since the description fits quite well, as a reading of the article as it existed when I deleted it clearly shows. Nor was my decision to delete the article based on whether or not I understood it. Keep in mind that two other editors have expressed understanding at why I deleted it originally (one of them right here on this page), and a third editor had deleted it before I did. And, if you read the diff you provided above, you'll see that my tone and actions were not bitey at all, and in fact I have offered to help and solicited the help of others in improving this article. In addition, rather than summarily delete the article and move on to something else, I spent quite a bit of time explaining to the author ways to work on it so it could be included in the project.
 * As a final note, while I try to always assume good faith, I have to say that your own attitude in this matter makes it a little difficult to do so in this case. Frank  |  talk  22:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Definitely notable and extremely influential. For someone who has never heard of it it clearly makes sense to doubt that, but think of this: How many research proposals, whether in mathematics or another subject, are there that get 280 hits on Google Scholar? I recommend reading the article on Alexander Grothendieck. Parts of it are interesting even if you know nothing about maths. The article is short, but at least in its current state I think it sets the context quite reasonably. All this said, I can understand why the article was speedily deleted in its earlier state. A conspiracy to suppress works by one of the greatest mathematicians of all times from publication? This is a clear invitation for classification as fringe. (I don't know if this is true, btw. Never heard of it, but that means nothing.) --Hans Adler (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is an excerpt from "The Grothendieck Theory of Dessins d'enfants", London Mathematical Society / Cambridge University Press, 1994: "The conference on dessins d'enfants at the CIRM in Luminy […] was organized in an effort to gather together a number of people who were working on or interested in subjects more or less closely related to this part of Grothendieck's Esquisse d'un Programme, many of whom were unaware of the fact that others were actively working on the same questions – indeed the Esquisses d'un Programme appears to have benefitted from a near-universal moratorium from French mathematicians until about a year ago though it was mention regularly in articles by Russian and Japanese mathematicians." They couldn't publish the original text in the book because they could not contact Grothendieck to ask his permission. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. A terrible article on a very important subject. But even after the recent improvements, it still needs help badly. Ozob (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2008 (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.