Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Mathematics

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Mathematics. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Mathematics|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Mathematics. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Mathematics/archive

watch

Mathematics

Collinear gradients method

Collinear gradients method (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable variant of Newtons method based upon a single primary source which has only a self-cite, created by a new editor. There are hundreds (thousands) of variants, only the main ones used in major codes and well cited merit inclusion; Wikipedia is not an optimization dictionary or how-to guide.

Draft:Collinear gradients method was declined at AfC by KylieTastic on December 29th. Author then copy-pasted it directly into main. Originator ignored WP:NPP notability etc comments, continuing to make minor expansions. Since original editor has contested AfC, it seems that draftification or PROD are inappropriate so straight to AfD. (N.B., possible COI of editor being author of the single source.) Ldm1954 (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Mathematics. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete, (1) individual detailed algorithms aren't wikipedia-notable based on a single primary reference; they need to be widely-used and discussed in secondary sources before they are appropriate subjects. So it's WP:TOOSOON at least. (2) we have a duty to our readers to write our articles in the style of an encyclopaedia, not in the style of a primary maths publication. The article is currently written in a way that gives no context, and is incomprehensible to anyone who isn't already a subject-expert. Elemimele (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Based on a research paper cited only once by its own author. Setting aside the poor expository style, which could plausibly be fixed, this does not pass WP:GNG, which requires multiple in-depth independent (and preferably secondary) sources, such as textbook chapters about this method. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

250 (number)

250 (number) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Compared to the standards at Wikipedia:Notability (numbers), info in the article seems somewhat trivial. -- Beland (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

270 (number)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/270 (number)
• Articles for deletion/270 (number) (2nd nomination)

270 (number) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Compared to the standards at Wikipedia:Notability (numbers), info in the article seems somewhat trivial. -- Beland (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep - Number is significant outside mathematics, especially in U.S. politics as it is the number needed to win the electoral college. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 01:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

1701 (number)

1701 (number) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Info in the article seems a bit trivial. -- Beland (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Compared to the standards at Wikipedia:Notability (numbers), that is. -- Beland (talk) 11:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

213 (number)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/213 (number)
• Articles for deletion/213 (number) (2nd nomination)

213 (number) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure anything in the article establishes that this is an interesting number based on the linked guideline. -- Beland (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Meets criteria 1 and 3 of the guideline. Peter James (talk) 11:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Robert Tang (teacher)

Robert Tang (teacher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NPERSON. Only sources on him are from the school district he works in and an interview. A before search yields no results. I do not believe this educator should qualify for WP:TEACHER, since according to the award's page, it is alloted to 1,500 teachers, making it not a "highly prestigious academic award", since Canada's population is only 40 million. Delete. -1ctinus📝🗨 23:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Mathematics, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Coverage of the award is strictly local; the award is only a $5000 prize. While still a nice amount, not a large award on the level of a Nobel. Outside of the one award won, nothing for notability for this teacher. Oaktree b (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Walks on ordinals

Walks on ordinals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This does not look ready for article space, but a user has declined draftification. Putting it up to the community to make a decision. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 12:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Could be G5 speedy deletion. Created by a long-blocked sockpuppeteer known for excessive promotion of the main author cited here, Stevo Todorcevic. G5 does apply because the draft was created in 2018 and the main account of the sockpuppeteer was indef-blocked in early 2017. The editor who insisted on promoting to article space is unrelated to the sockpuppeteer but perhaps unaware of this history since they were using the fact that the creator was inactive (because they were blocked) as a reason to insist on this incomplete draft being moved to article space. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:FORK, although at redirect to Countryman line is also available. 03:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Mathematics proposed deletions

• Tasawar Hayat (via WP:PROD on 8 November 2024)