Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-classical analysis

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 merge to Mathematical analysis#Other topics. Sandstein 17:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non-classical analysis

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Prodded by Felix QW (talk · contribs) due to lack of evidence that this is a coherent topic (WP:SYNTH and WP:GNG). Deprodded without explanation or improvement by Jim Grisham (talk · contribs).

From Talk:Non-classical analysis#OR?

Do we have any sources for all these items being grouped under such a heading? Tkuvho (talk) 10:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we do actually, the distinction here clearly isn't in the non-classical logic sense, given the topics. And while there are many books on "Classical Analysis" it is not clear to me we should group these topics together because they are are not in these texts. Thenub314 (talk) 03:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually a nice umbrella term, although the list as its stands seems to be OR. Felix QW has PRODded it, although I winder if draftification might be better until we figure out what to do with the idea. I'd be prepared to steward the article through AfC. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'd be happy to take back the PROD. I wanted to tidy up the page, as I couldn't figure any sensible grouping which included p-adic analysis and intuitionistic analysis but excluded non-standard analysis. So I did some research on the concept, and I only found one pertinent reference. That is a philosophy paper by Harrison on Zeno's paradoxes, in which the author explicitly states that we he calls non-classical analysis is usually called synthetic differential geometry (p. 279 there).

So I became convinced that the term isn't actually in general use, and since I couldn't figure out the inclusion criteria used here either, I thought it appropriate to PROD it. Felix QW (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mess of OR (I don't suppose there is a reliable source that gives the same definition as in the lead) and false claims (all widely accepted constructive analysis can be formalised in ZFC). We're better off not having it in articlespace as it stands. I just think it isn't a terrible skeleton on which to build a defensible article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! So how do we go about this? WP:DRAFTIFY seems to suggest that we would have to go through AfD to draftify an "old" page? Felix QW (talk) 08:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for the PROD to run out. If it's soft deleted, I can ask to draftify it, if it's deprodded, I can list it at AfD. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

De-Prodded by Jim Grisham already. Would you like to list it at AfD then? Felix QW (talk) 11:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll start one before long. It occurs to me that redirecting to Mathematical analysis#Other topics is simpler than draftifying. It's worthy of discussion. — Charles Stewart (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

–LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mathematical analysis#Other topics. I now prefer Charles Stewart's idea of leaving a redirect, since non-classical analysis seems a plausible search term for either non-standard analysis or analysis based on non-classical logic. As Constructive analysis, Intuitionistic analysis, Paraconsistent analysis and Smooth infinitesimal analysis are still missing from the target section, I would suggest merging those items into there. I would also be happy to perform the merger, should this become consensus. Felix QW (talk) 09:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Mathematical analysis#Other topics as the simplest course of action. This AfD really seems to have arisen out of a misunderstanding: the original PROD was not actually contested but I think Jim Grisham took the discussion of a possible merge to be contesting the PROD. Note that there is a certain amount of misinformation in the article as it stands: all of those topics can be formalised in set theory; this is not the sense in which, e.g. abstract Stone duality is said to be non-classical. — Charles Stewart (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2022 (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.