Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proofs involving the Laplace–Beltrami operator


 * 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 delete.  Sandstein  19:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Proofs involving the Laplace–Beltrami operator

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The article consists of unsourced proofs which are not encyclopedic in content. They are not notable as proofs, and they are also not illustrative of any particular technique covered in an article. Since Wikipedia is neither textbook nor research paper, there is no need to justify claims made in articles with calculations such as these. Felix QW (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Felix QW (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. PianoDan (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I find WP:NOTTEXTBOOK a somewhat squishy rule to follow; how textbook-y is too textbook-y can be a matter of taste. However, for any reasonable drawing of the line, this is on the wrong side of it. None of the proofs in this page are themselves noteworthy for historical reasons. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment just as with Articles for deletion/Proofs involving the Moore–Penrose inverse, the article in question (Proofs involving the Laplace–Beltrami operator) should be transwikied to Wikibooks (and/or Wikiversity?), where I think it would also be of use. Duckmather (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The reason I did not ask for transwikiing the material to Wiibooks is that while Proofs involving the Moore-Penrose inverse is quite self-contained and didactic, meaning that I could craft a book page out of it in a day's work, and I could see a book where it could fit, this one is neither. The statements and proofs do not follow on from each other in a didactic manner, they would require substantial development to become a textbook treatment of the Laplace-Beltrami operator, and they build on concepts and results that are themselves not represented on Wikibooks and would have to be written up first. Felix QW (talk) 08:15, 10 February 2022 (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.