Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tacit extension


 * 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 JERRY talk contribs 03:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Tacit extension

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unreferenced stub article, looks like a dictionary definition, but Google does not lead me to believe that this is a widely-used term. Guy (Help!) 10:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Specialized terminology often has room for expansion to an article beyond a dictionary definition and etymology. Keep for a while, try to get someone to improve it, and if it can't be done then delete per WP:NOT. About 1,000 Ghits for "Tacit extension" -wikipedia -wiki, so I'd give a very small benefit of the doubt TheBilly (talk) 10:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A quasi-random sampling of the Google results showed that very few were about logic or mathematics; most simply used the words in their ordinary meanings, in colloquial or legal contexts. I'd be surprised if as many as 5% of the total results were about this concept. Admittedly, 5% of 1100 isn't too bad, but it's not great either.  CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per The Billy. RJC Talk 19:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I found plenty of usage of this term in the mathematics/logic context when I searched. Not all the Ghits are for that context, some are for the legal context so perhaps the article should deal with that as well. ++Lar: t/c 20:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you sure it was being used as a specific legal phrase rather than as two separate English words - an extension of something that in this case was tacit? WAS 4.250 (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep merge/delete - possible alternative might be to merge with the relevant projection article, if expansion is or becomes unlikely. Article needs to define the term a bit more precisely/clearly though, and did anybody notice the crazy vandalism going on in the history? Change: I change my "vote" to merge, although on the provision that the definition of this thing can be verified (otherwise, delete without prejudice). I've changed my mind because I took a closer look at the internets and other possible sources of verification/expansion of the article's content and things don't look promising (as others have mentioned). --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * delete unless both a definition and examples of its use can be properly sourced. I found no sources that did not lead to Awbrey. It may be the term is original with him and has yet to be adopted by the wider logic community. That would not make the terminology invalid; but it would make it an unacceptable neologism for wikipedia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 03:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice toward re-creation. The material is neither sourced nor clear, and I'd just as soon start from a blank page than from this sub-stub.  If that happens to make the original author happy, so much the better. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per CRGreathouse; this article, as it is, is totally useless and can only be fixed (if so desired) by starting over. But, like WAS, I found no uses in this meaning except in text by the now banned article creator, and so I suspect the article title is a neologism, and the article violates WP:NOR. --Lambiam 09:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I figured out what the article is trying to say, which is a start. If we have a set A as a subset of X, the "tacit extension" of A to $$X \times Y$$ is $$A \times Y$$. There is no reason that this concept needs to have its own article. If this is indeed a worthwhile term to define at all, I would redirect tacit extension to relation (mathematics) and give a clear definition there. But I am not yet convinced the term is used enough to justify even that. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For example, a search on google books for "tacit extension" mathematics does not yield any uses of the term in this sense, only colloquial uses. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 15:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's actually what I was thinking too, when looking at the "definition" provided in the article. If anything, that means it's really not worth mentioning. It almost seems like two words that are just doing their thing separately - we can always extend some set to the largest (or "least committal") superset we know contains it. In fact, we may do so tacitly. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. As Carl has pointed out, the article is trying to say that the tacit extension of a subset A of X to X&times;Y is A&times;Y.  This usage of tacit extension appears to be a coinage of Jon Awbrey which has not found widespread use. Spacepotato (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice unsourced, never heard of it. Could be recreated with same or different meaning if it can be demonstrated that the phrase has currency somewhere as a term of art (rather than just as a nonce term or as two words combined with ordinary English semantics). --Trovatore (talk) 05:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice. I fully agree with Trovatore. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No reliable sources that could be used to show notability or even actual use, per Avoid neologisms. EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Trovatore. Paul August &#9742; 04:53, 7 January 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.