Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twists of curves

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The result was Withdrawn. Black Kite (talk) 09:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Twists of curves

[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)

The article does not use the term "Twists of curves" of any point, and neither do the sources. This seems to be an unrelated synthesis of random ideas. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an extremely standard concept in advanced algebraic geometry most often seen for elliptic curves, but not always (recent non-elliptic examples with both "twists" and "curves" in the title include MR 4053064, MR4039488, MR4028119, MR3906177). You don't see "twists of curves" because most often they talk about twists of a specific curve or of a specific type of curve; for instance, Google Scholar has over 200 hits for the exact phrase "twists of an elliptic curve". However, the phrase "the twists of a curve" does occur in the literature, for instance in MR2678623, MR3856841, etc. And a trout to the nominator for taking their own lack of understanding of advanced material as a reason for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: Then why is literally none of that in the article? You flat out admitted most of the sources don't even call it "twists of curves" at all. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't take understanding the topic to know that the phrase "twists of curves" occurs nowhere in the article nor in the sources cited. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I explained that already. Somehow you failed to understand it. So let me say it again: Because most research articles discuss twists of particular curves, or particular types of curves, and call it "twists of elliptic curves" or "twists of the curve [EQUATION]" or whatever. You cannot do this sort of judgement based on exact string-matching. That is a stupid way of trying to read the mathematics literature. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, there's a clear textbook statement of the same definition as in the lead (two curves are twists if they are isomorphic over an algebraic closure of the field in which they are defined) at https://books.google.com/books?id=J2LMBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA59 (in the context of elliptic curves again). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And of course, these sources being here in the AFD means they're now automatically in the article too, right? Funny how that works Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm extremely surprised that an editor with your experience is unaware that notability is only about the existence of sources, not about whether they have actually been added to the article. WP:DINC. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Because every time I see an article that's "Keep, it just needs more sources, here they are", literally no one ever bothers to add them to the article. And then fourteen years later, the article is still two sentences long without a source in sight. It gets nominated again, people say "keep, it just needs more sources, here they are", and then more years pass without anyone adding them to the article. There's WP:DEADLINE, and then there's just wishing that the sources will somehow magic themselves into the article overnight because no one wants to actually put the legwork in. And this is dancing dangerously close to the latter. So are you going to add them, or are you going to just let the article sit and rot? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article covers the three types of twists of curves. Quadratic twist, Quartic twist, and Cubic twist. If you have a better name for the article, then suggest it. Dream Focus 00:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What part of your !vote gave a reason to keep? Answer: none of it. You want it to keep because... why? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia. This is clearly encyclopedic content. So far three people say keep, you the only one arguing to delete it. I don't know what confusion you have about this, but I don't see any reason to argue with you over it. Dream Focus 01:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a juxtaposition of unrelated ideas or a novel synthesis, but a reasonable mathematical topic. It could perhaps be renamed to "twists of curves in algebraic geometry" or something like that; however, that does not seem strictly necessary. I'm not sure the {{technical}} template is warranted, either, since some topics are just intrinsically technical and there's no point in fussing over it. XOR'easter (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it's "not a juxtaposition of unrelated ideas", then why do NONE of the sources use the term "twists of curves" at all? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This was already explained above. Exact, automaton-like string matching is not informative for technical topics. The very first reference in the article talks about quadratic, cubic, and quartic twists on its first page; there is literally zero synthesis happening here. XOR'easter (talk) 01:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant coverage can be found in multiple reliable, secondary sources.

References

SailingInABathTub (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per David Eppstein, Dream Focus and SailingInABathTub. Nomination seems to be more of a WP:NAMING issue. If there's a problem with the name, that can and should be fixed outside of AFD.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, those sources that everyone's throwing around... they're just gonna add themselves to the article, right? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLUDGEON —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes bludgeoning is the only way to get anything done around here. Would you rather the article continue to gather dust, or would you rather I whack all the dust off with my username? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:47, 10 April 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.