Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Square Root of a 2x2 Matrix


 * 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Square Root of a 2x2 Matrix

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

Article explaining how to extract the square root of a 2x2 matrix. Half of the page is unparsed LaTeX code. In any case, this is most definitely not an encyclopedia article. Could perhaps be transwikied, say to WikiBooks, but I'm not sure they'd be interested to have the article in its current state of unreadability. Pichpich (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - possibly a CSD A1, but that's questionable, so... Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 22:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't find it, but I know a clause is that Wiki is not a how-to guide. Oh and what do you mean? You don't speak "\\\\"? Travellingcari (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Looks like it's been copied from a maths textbook, but wikipedia is not an instructional manual in any case. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT; also, given that this is mostly code, I wouldn't object to an A1 for lack of context. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. See Square root of a matrix for a more encyclopedic (but also more general and vague) treatment of this subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: I wondered if the LaTeX source could have been a copyvio, but it appears that the author just prepared the doc in LaTeX. The author also uploaded Image:Square Root of a Wiki.pdf‎, Image:Square root of a wiki.pdf, Image:Square Root of a Matrix.pdf and Image:Square root of a matrix.pdf. "Source: My brain" doesn't sound very encouraging (even if it's very much debated in case of mathematical proofs). I don't have time to check these out but they sound like they're related to this article. Looks like a little bit of a mess here... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I checked the pdf mentioned by wwwwolf, and it is about the same.  Almost certainly not copyright violation (poor grammar, unfocused writing, etc. so probably not published).  The topic could be notable enough for a section of an article, but basically the current content (after adding the math tags) is a very long solution to a homework exercise.  I don't think numerically stability is addressed. JackSchmidt (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think AfD was the right choice, not speedy. The user is vaguely new (though this is not his first article by any means), and bit off more than he was prepared for, but that is no reason to WP:BITE back.  He clearly put a lot of effort into bring the tex document into wikipedia format.  However, I think the WP:OR and WP:NOT comments apply fairly clearly to this personally-authored-essay-turned-wikipedia-article, as well as its image counterparts.  Should the images be nominated too?  Can they simply be prod'd? JackSchmidt (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable and poor quality. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Incoherent. Cloudz679 (talk) 13:39, 17 February 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.