Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:0.999.../Arguments (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the discussion was keep--Aervanath (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:0.999.../Arguments
Non-standard (per WP:TALK) talk sub-page which is basically being used for ad-hoc discussion of maths, rather than the article itself. It was originally created as a "troll-magnet" of sorts (i.e. to deflect nonsense from the actual talk page), with the rationale that 0.999... was particularly controversial and prone to trolling. However, in recent times, it has been shown not to be particularly effective, and this subpage has just degenerated into endless arguments that dredge up the same material over and over again.

Other, far-more controversial articles (such as Intelligent design, abortion or George W. Bush) get along fine without ad-hoc discussion pages; presumably off-topic material is simply deleted from the talk page.

My suggestion is the existing material either be archived, or summarised into the FAQ and the page deleted.

See also Talk:0.999.../Arguments for a precursor to this MFD. Oli Filth(talk 22:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've just noticed that this was AFDed before (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:0.999.../Arguments); however, I'm not convinced by the argument that we need a "convenient sink for such discussions that won't go away". Why can't off-topic material just be deleted like on every other talk page on WP?  As of now, it's just a series of circular arguments with trolls and anonymous IPs.  Oli Filth(talk 22:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The page serves no purpose, except as a source of fun for people who enjoy arguing. Ideally, anyone who posts arguments, unsourced claims, or original research will simply have their "contributions" removed according to standard policy.  As it is, trolls to this article are given a free pass and a page to post literally any pseudo-mathematical nonsense that crosses their minds. Some people may claim that the Arguments page prevents vandalism to the article or arguments on the main Talk page.  The histories of each page will refute those claims.  Gustave the Steel (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment "Ideally, anyone who posts arguments, unsourced claims, or original research will simply have their "contributions" removed according to standard policy." - those policies apply to Articles, not Talk pages. Your "some people may claim" is a straw man - obviously it doesn't prevent it, but it can reduce it. Furthermore, it provides a non-controversial way of transferring the information to another page (as opposed to getting into a debate about whether another user's talk comments should be deleted or not, or even edit wars from people who disagree). Mdwh (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 *  Keep . The talk page is currently more for productive changes to the article, while this page is for people who do not understand very basic math and want to argue about the validity of the equality. This makes sense to have two talk pages, since the math people who want to improve the article can be easily turned off by the kooks.Tparameter (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There are other places on the internet to discuss mathematics. Instead of providing a safe haven for trolls, we should direct doubters to math forums elsewhere on the web.  Wikipedia is ill-suited to be a forum, in theory and in practice. Gustave the Steel (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That is actually a very good point. Tparameter (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You are addressing the wrong problem. Your problem is (according to your own statements, at least) with an editor who won't cease mis-using Wikipedia as a forum for xyr mathematical arguments.  You don't solve that by deleting the talk page.  You don't solve that with any form of deletion at all.  Deleting things won't fix the problem, because the existence of the pages isn't the problem.  It's the editor's behaviour that is the problem.  Address that.  Try to convince the editor to cease, and if you fail pursue the dispute resolution process through Requests for comment, third opinion, mediation, and the Arbitration Committee.  Miscellany for deletion is not a step anywhere along that route. Uncle G (talk) 00:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oli has yet to mention problems with any specific editors in this proposal. His problems with certain editors do not in any way invalidate the arguments he or I have made here. Gustave the Steel (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, xe quite clearly has. It's the very first thing that xe wrote in the discussion section on the talk page that xe suggests that people read, above.  This isn't some blind machine-like bureaucratic process where everything apart from solely what is on this page is magically excluded, and the rest of us coming to an MFD discussion are not so daft as to discount something that the nominator xyrself suggests that we read as part of the nomination. Uncle G (talk) 03:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So, then, which of our arguments does his problem with another editor contradict? For example, in this discussion and the other one, he suggests that arguing about the equality of 0.999... and 1 is better suited for math forums than for Wikipedia.  His problem with another editor does not contradict or invalidate that claim.  There are legitimate reasons why the Arguments page should be discontinued, and he has presented some here without bringing up personal grudges.  (Besides, I actually enjoy bantering with the editor he mentioned - and I still want the Arguments page gone.  Therefore, personal grudges are not necessary to desire deletion of the page.  QED.)  Gustave the Steel (talk) 05:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Nothing has changed since the last MFD. --Tango (talk) 01:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. If you don't want to see the page, take it off your watchlist.  The page implements a harm-reduction strategy that's working; that's more important than strict adherence to guidelines. WP is not a bureaucracy. --Trovatore (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I keep the page on my watchlist for sheer car-crash entertainment, but that doesn't mean it should be retained! I agree that WP isn't a bureaucracy (or at least shouldn't be).  However, that argument on its own could be used to justify almost anything.  A lot of people here feel that the page in question is solving some big problem (that clearly must exist on other "controversial" pages like the ones I listed above); my opinion is it's not really addressing the problem, and if anything, merely exacerbates it.  Oli Filth(talk 07:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You aren't addressing the problem either, with this, though. Hint:  What justification do you have for thinking that deleting the talk page will have any effect at all on the editors who are starting these talk page discussions?  You keep telling us that they don't actually put their arguments on that page in the first place.  So how is deleting a page that they don't use to begin with going to stop them from making their arguments where they actually do make them to begin with?  Perhaps you'd like the main talk page deleted as well?  The existence of the page is not the problem to be addressed.  Uncle G (talk) 03:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is not one that needs a bespoke solution! I'm not claiming that removing the arguments page will solve things.  I am claiming that its existence is not solving anything; so in essence, I see no justification for its retention.  IPs will post stuff on the main article or talk page regardless of whether the arguments page exists or not.  I suspect established editors who inhabit the arguments page (myself included) wouldn't continue off-topic discussions on the talk page, as they know that's not the done thing.  So the existence of the arguments page is orthogonal to the fact that off-topic stuff gets posted to the talk page.  On any other article, there would be nowhere near as much lee-way afforded to off-topic material and trolling, and I really don't buy the argument that 0.999... is somehow a special case.  Oli Filth(talk 09:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is one of those areas where we should breach our usual standards for utilitarian reasons. No matter what we do, there will be a continual influx of people wanting to argue the falsity of the article; some of them can be swayed by the mathematical logic, others can't; but people who are or who can talk like mathematicians have on thing in common: they have to be right. It's in the nature of a proof. And someone coming up and telling them they are wrong demands a response; and saying "you're too ignorant to understand the truth" doesn't go over well. We'd be biting newbies almost every day. I think keeping the page is better; it does keep the talk page useful, which it wouldn't be otherwise. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 01:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the arguments have not changed from the first MfD. It is more useful to keep than destroy, and just think of all that valuable content that would become inaccessible!  Certainly the talk pages can be used to dispute the content of an article, even if the dispute is wrong. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Justified as it is.  Disagree that it is or was a troll magnet; it exists for good faith but recurrent challenges.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a forum. Stifle (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Talk pages *are* forums for discussions on the alleged inaccuracies on the article page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, but this page is discussing maths. I like maths, but that doesn't change things. Stifle (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - "in recent times, it has been shown not to be particularly effective" - where is the evidence for this assertion? In fact, precisely the opposite is true: the Talk page Talk:0.999... is free of arguments, because we've been able to transfer the recent thread across to it. Arguments about what other pages do are irrelevant here - either those pages don't have to worry about such discussions, or if they do, there's just as much argument to be made for them having such a page too. Deleting the content may be an option in some cases, but this is not always the case: sometimes people shield their arguments behind a pretence of discussing the article (e.g., the notation, or the way it should be presented). It also often isn't clear what category it goes into when someone starts a new thread. Mdwh (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that material continues to show up on the actual talk page (and sometimes the article) is evidence that the arguments page is ineffective (on its own) in eliminating this problem, as manual intervention is still required each time. Every time a thread is off-topic enough to be transferred from Talk:0.999... to Talk:0.999.../Arguments, it's off-topic enough to be deleted!  Oli Filth(talk 19:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See my comment above. No one is claiming this is magically 100% effective, but an occasional transfer is preferable to repeated deletions and edit-warring, as well as difficulties in knowing whether it's okay to remove it (far greater care should be taken over deleting other users' comments from talk pages - transferring to another more suitable section is far less likely to be contested by the OP or indeed other users). I transfer anything that looks like an argument without a second thought, but I won't be deleting any material unless it's obvious. Mdwh (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The page does exactly what it says on the tin; this topic is a controversy magnet, has been for years before Wikipedia existed, and will likely always remain so. Yet at the same time, 0.999... is an important mathematical article, precisely for that reason. As has been said in another comment above, even though a few of the disputants that turn up on that page are trolls, most of them are acting in good faith, discussing what they see as serious and obvious errors in the article. In an ideal world, the arguments page wouldn't need to exist. But its existence is better than the alternative of fighting running battles on the existing talk page, which is currently being used to do useful article-related work. -- The Anome (talk) 11:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Page seems to serve a valid purpose, and does not appear to attract personal attacks nor editwars. No solid grounds for deletion. Collect (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2009 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.