Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proofs related to the Digamma function


 * 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Proofs related to the Digamma function

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The only two actual proofs are completely routine calculus exercises. Per WikiProject_Mathematics/Proofs, "It is widely accepted, however, that if a proof is made a topic of its own dedicated Wikipedia article, the proof must be significant as a proof, not merely 'routine'." These proofs could easily be summarized in the main article with a short remark if necessary. The majority of the article though is a lengthy piece of Haskell code for computing the asymptotic series of $$e^{\psi(x)}$$. Not only are we not a code repository, but this seems very likely to be pure original research. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. Without context, it isn't clear what these proofs are trying to prove.  And long swatches of source code or pseudocode are not English. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: There is no encyclopedic content here. In general, some proofs are appropriate for WP, but WP is not a textbook or collection of monographs so mathematical completeness is not necessary. Proofs that are easily filled in by the reader are not consistent with the aims on an encyclopedia and should be removed. The code computes coefficients of an asymptotic formula in the main article (in Digamma function) which is itself unreferenced and apparently OR.--RDBury (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. My general feeling on proofs in Wikipedia is that they can sometimes be valuable as a way of helping to explain a topic even when the proof is not independently notable, but in that case they should be incorporated into the main article on whatever it is they're proving, and that unenlightening and routine proofs should be skipped altogether. But this one doesn't even read like one of the routine proofs that should be skipped, it reads like someone's personal notes, readable only by their author, and much more likely to baffle than to help anyone else who comes across them. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research, and for lack of notability as would be shown by multiple articles about it in peer-reviewed math journals or other reliable and independent sources. Edison (talk) 02:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to digamma function. A412  (Talk * C) 01:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why redirect? It's not as though the article title is a plausible search term.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:03, 4 February 2012 (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.