Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tikhonov's theorem


 * 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. In the sense of "retain as a disambiguation page"; how the page (and other related pages) should be named is not yet clear but can be resolved editorially.  Sandstein  06:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Tikhonov&
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Procedural nomination. The page was nominated for deletion at Miscellany for deletion/Tikhonov's theorem. Below is the discussion:

 Only 3 links; one is red and according to the deletion log has never existed (the dab page was created in 2009). This can be adequately addressed with distinguish on one page and redirect on the other. A dab page is unnecessary. Hairy Dude (talk) 02:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Why's this on MfD and not AfD? Nevertheless, the rationale is valid; dab pages for only two entries are always pointless, as getting to the "correct" page always takes exactly as many steps in the worst case with two hatnotes as it does with a dab, and in the former case over 50% of readers should have no additional steps to take. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(end of copied discussion) Cunard (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * G6 agreed, the names are disparate enough that distinguish is all you need. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 16:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * keep, speedy declined. Does not meet speedy criterion. Perhaps we should have an entry for the missing item. Red links are good. Anyone looking for it or any of the theorems would come here, and might well known enough to write it.   DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not an argument based on the deletion guidelines, nor one helpful to our readers (who outnumber our editors by several orders of magnitude). If the article is written the dab page can be trivially reinstated. Until then it is actively hindering readers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Move this listing to AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Is this an article or a disambiguation page? Unreferenced and consisting solely of three links and brief explanations, without any explanation of its subject, this page is close to meeting WP:A3. Interchangable (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.  — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems to be useful as a disambiguation page; spelling of Russian(?) names is not the strong point of many editors / readers. Redlink could be created, theoretically. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a disambiguation page, although it only contains two extant articles. Granted, as someone above points out, its purpose could be achieved with a disambig link at the top of both articles.   However, WP:Disambiguation says "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed – it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article."   But in this case, it does not appear that one is "primary", so a Disambig page may be appropriate. --Noleander (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The terms are very similar, both in name and concept. I would say they're close enough that if a person was looking for one and found the other they may never even suspect they were in the wrong place. It also prevents confusion among people looking for the redlinked term. For Technical terms, clarity is preferred to brevity, and I think the disambiguation helps keep the issue clear.--Djohns21 (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep – useful disambiguation page. --Lambiam 18:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. We should also include something about Tikhonoff's uniqueness theorem for the heat equation; that makes three entries, enough for a valid dab. I can't tell whether that is supposed to be the same as the theorem in the redlink or not. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I sharply disagree that you can't have dab pages with only two entries.  It's not about number of clicks, which Chris Cunningham mentioned; it's about whether you can identify one meaning as primary, which should mean that it is very substantially more likely to be linked or searched, not just a little more likely.  If two articles are of roughly the same prominence, then you shouldn't declare one primary just to avoid a dab page.  That said, no !vote here, because I think the one about compact spaces is probably primary. --Trovatore (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep There are three topics listed. One of them is a red link, but it's a good red link, to a topic that deserves an article.  Probably everyone remembers learning Tikhonov's theorem in a topology course as an undergraduate (OK, experiences vary, but the one on compact spaces is one that everybody knows) but some people who routinely use the term "Tihkonov's theorem" are talking about one of the others. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Later note: I think Tychonoff's theorem and Tikhonov's theorem should not be separate articles, but rather the various different spellings should redirect to one page, since if I'm not mistaken, they all have the same spelling in the original Cyrillic.  There should be a disambiguation page with the three links.  What it should be called is another question. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Chris Cunningham's proposal that dab pages with only two links are always pointless is wrong, as noted by Trovatore above. Also, the names are not at all disparate; they're the same name, spelled in the same way in the original Cyrillic letters. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect As RDBury pointed out on WT:MATH, Tikhonov's theorem seems to be just an alternative spelling of Tychonoff's theorem. So one way or the other, the page under discussion probably should be a redirect to Tychonoff's theorem.  This doesn't exclude the possibility of a disambig page if the two meanings are thought to have comparable prominence; in that case, the current Tychonoff's theorem page would be moved to something like Tychonoff's theorem on products of compact spaces (or whatever title makes the most sense), and the redirect left behind would then be turned into a disambig page.  But making one spelling an article and the other one a disambig just doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. --Trovatore (talk) 11:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Technical comment If it is decided that T[ik|ch]ono[v|ff]'s theorem should be a disambig page, then the right order to do the moves is:
 * First, move Tychonoff's theorem to Tychonoff's theorem on compact spaces (or whatever)
 * Second, delete the redirect at Tychonoff's theorem and move Tikhonov's theorem (the current disambig page) to Tychonoff's theorem
 * Third, edit the new Tychonoff's theorem, containing the content of the old Tikhonov's theorem, so that it has a link to Tychonoff's theorem on compact spaces. --Trovatore (talk) 11:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Rather than Tychonoff's theorem on compact spaces, the title Tychonoff's product theorem has also been proposed. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Tychonoff's theorem, clearly the primary topic. Or move this page to Tychonoff's theorem (disambiguation). —Kusma (t·c) 11:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect "Tikhonov's theorem" to Tychonoff's theorem, which as mentioned above is clearly the primary topic (it's a common first example of a theorem equivalent to the axiom of choice). Take the content at the current page and move it to Tychonoff's theorem (disambiguation) or whatever is the appropriate parenthetical. I think that it would be unreasonable to change "Tychonoff's theorem" to anything else. RobHar (talk) 19:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Tikhonov's theorem (dynamical systems) now exists. It's no longer a red link. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:51, 31 July 2011 (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.