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The result was Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Algebraic bracket

[edit]

It is inaccurate and no one seems to be willing to fix it Cronholm144 02:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's inaccurate, then fix it? --Haemo 02:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the resources and I am not sure if it is notable enough even if I could.--Cronholm144 02:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've posted this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics, which handles math RFCs and similar. Might get someone to come and have a look. Tearlach 02:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should have talked to Silly rabbit first... He might fix it.--Cronholm144 02:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Nope. I vote emphatic delete. If necessary, it can be revived ad hoc later. But I doubt we'll ever see it again. Silly rabbit 02:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~*Delete~~ If the assertion is that this entry is inaccurate then it needs to be deleted. Misinformation is worse than none at all. the_undertow ^talk 02:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- As the article is being corrected, I rescind my 'delete.' the_undertow ^talk 20:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename. These algebraic brackets (and similar ones, due to Gerstenhaber et al.) are notable. A stub is a useful reminder that there is work to be done. Geometry guy 02:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added the stub. On the talk page Silly Rabit thinks the definition might be inaccurate, but no errors are pointed out. The nominator seems to be echoing that whilst substituting certainty for doubt. --MarSch 09:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Nijenhuis-Richardson bracket and have this as a dab. Also Bracket algebra is currently red. --Salix alba (talk) 11:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Rename. Inaccuracy is no reason in and of itself for deletion. Lankiveil 11:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep The only problem with this article is that it needs a bit of work doing to it, just becasue something needs work - doesn't mean to say we just leave it and delete it - does it? The Sunshine Man 14:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's in the process of being expanded and corrected. Silly rabbit 15:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... and move to Nijenhuis-Richardson bracket, in my opinion. Silly rabbit 15:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

move as per rabbit--Cronholm144 16:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need an AfD discussion and closing admin for that. Do I take it that you are withdrawing the nomination? --Lambiam ^Talk 17:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article has been improved, and moved to a more descriptive name. Can we all agree that this is a satisfactory resolution of the matter? The renamed article looks pretty good to me. DavidCBryant 22:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep, as it appears legit, now. linas 00:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I guess I am... but I don't know how to close a discussion. Anyone who wants to, feel free to do so.--Cronholm144 22:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can strike through your nomination ("It is inaccurate...") by including it between <s> and </s>, and appending "Nomination withdrawn. ~~~~". This is a ground for speedy closure, and then anyone who knows how to can do it. --Lambiam ^Talk 00:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay, it's clear what Cronholm wants. I closed the discussion. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2007 (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.