Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathematical methods

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. Sandstein 12:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical methods

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

Solution in search of a problem. The only usage I found (now reverted) was basically to the phrase "methods using mathematics" (and in three of the four cases, were on pages on the dab itself) In other words, a bad dab. Primefac (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Isn't this AFD a solution in search of a problem? The term "mathematical methods" is very broad; it makes sense to allow any readers searching on such a broad term to find their way to articles about mathematical methods in three big areas (physics, electronics, economics). There is no way in which this disambiguation page hurts anything, and it does help. In general, disambiguation pages are supporting pages, like redirects, that are "cheap" and helpful. --do ncr am 17:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It could be converted to a broad concept article (which would naturally link to the physics, electronics, economics articles), but no editor is barred from doing that by the disambiguation page existing. It should not be deleted. --do ncr am 17:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The title is often used for books or university courses. It's a broad concept which might usefully link to many other articles including applied mathematics, mathematical analysis, numerical analysis and quantitative research. Andrew D. (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a widely used term and the page is sensibly and usefully constructed. It can certainly be improved, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 21:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 21:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 21:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete useless redirect. Vague, overbroad, with nothing linking to it, serving no purpose for disambiguation. The fact that "mathematical methods" *might* mean something useful, used as a justification by the !keep comments above, does not mean that what we have here actually *is* useful. Created by notorious creator-of-useless-redirects Fmadd. Nuke it. No prejudice against creating a different article with the title "mathematical methods" if someone finds a specific topic by that name to write about, or if there is something less vague and general than mathematics, mathematical physics, etc. to link to in a redirect page. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NAMELIST as two of the entries on the WP:DAB page are only partial entries and the third is a subset of the disambiguation article's scope. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 22:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein and KAP03. older ≠ wiser 10:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update I have added more entries which seem reasonably close in meaning or wording. The nay-saying above is now obsolete. Andrew D. (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, still looks like nothing more than a bunch of partial title matches. older ≠ wiser 17:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I Agree with Bkonrad, this still does not do anything to help disambiguate the nonexistent incoming wikilinks to mathematical methods. And I would argue that any article that does try to attach a link to the phrase "mathematical methods", shouldn't — it will always be mathematical methods in some particular topic, and the topic should be included in the wikilink. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of links is complicated by the plural form as it is our convention to prefer singular titles which doesn't work so well in this case. Anyway, the point at issue here is whether deletion is appropriate. If deleted it would return to being an unsatisfied redlink in pages like this. My view remains that the page is best retained for further development. Maybe it could be developed into a broad concept article using sources like Newton on Mathematical Method. The worst case would be redirection to a list or category such as list of mathematics-based methods. Andrew D. (talk) 10:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson: It will not be an unsatisfied redlink, because there are no incoming links to it from article space (and there should not be any links in future, because it's too vague a term to support a link by itself). That was, in a nutshell, the problem with all of Fmadd's contributions: they consisted of adding inappropriate wikilinks and then creating bad disambiguation pages for them. The user-space list you link to in your comment is owned by a long-defunct bot and was last updated in 2007, so it has little relevance for the current state of Wikipedia. What is the justification for holding dearly to the damage he created as if it was useful content? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at the page titles and redirects created by Fmadd and, as they mostly seem quite sensible, like this one, the mistreatment of this good-faith editor seems contrary to WP:BITE. My position is unchanged; the page in question has merit and there are sensible alternatives which we should prefer before deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 09:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete- seems like it does violate WP:NAMELIST, but could be useful to people if they happen to try to search "mathematical methods"Porphyro (talk) 10:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: way too vague to be really useful in any non-contrived scenario. That's what search functions are for; WP:PTM. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 15:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Far too wide-ranging in its scope to be of any use. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.