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.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Mathematics.

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

List of statistical mechanics articles

List of statistical mechanics articles (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 page is not about anything. Statistical mechanics is the article about statistical mechanics. (It's not even linked here!) Wikipedia is navigated by wikilinks and Wikipedia:Summary style, not by a table-of-contents as this article seems to be. The article is not useful. An overview of statistical mechanics should be in Statistical mechanics. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an index, which navigates articles related to a field. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed to match convention. Might not exactly be an index, though: it's not alphabetical like a lot of the rest. Mrfoogles (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(@Johnjbarton posted a comment and then deleted it again, check the history) Forgot that moving was part of AFD discussions, figured that if the AFD hadn't been going on I would have just up and moved it anyways, because it seemed to fit. I can move it back and just vote for "Move to Index of statistical mechanics articles" instead if people feel like it's necessary. I figured if it survives it would probably move there anyways, and if it's deleted it doesn't matter what the name is. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrfoogles I deleted my comment because it was incorrect. I thought you had mistyped.

Your move is an improvement. I still think the article is pointless. We should put our energies into statistical mechanics. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy, Mathematics, and Lists. Skynxnex (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also vote Keep. Large enough subject to have index for given the established pattern. Probably can be linked in the See Also of statistical mechanics: serves a minor purpose and doesn’t hurt anything. Does need to be alphabetized but not deleted. Mrfoogles (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Category:Statistical mechanics shows how many things should be here. If there was a column listing year of discovery and other stats, would it be more useful? Or a description of what each thing is? Dream Focus 03:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Isn't the index exactly redundant with Category:Statistical mechanics? If we add information to the index as you suggest aren't we creating a summary article exactly as I advocate we should in statistical mechanics? Johnjbarton (talk) 03:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Would all of those relevant entries fit in the other article? Dream Focus 04:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Are they related to "statistical mechanics"? Then yes. Otherwise they don't belong in the index either. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Moving the article in the middle of an AFD was also inappropriate; if someone wants to make it into an actual contextual list beyond just pointless bullet-pointed links, the original "List of" name was better. Still, they should be linked in the main article, Template:Statistical mechanics, Template:Statistical mechanics topics, and Category:Statistical mechanics as appropriate, but this serves no additional purpose so Delete or merge. Reywas92^Talk 03:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The columns and information I added shows its a valid navigational list, it allowing more information than the category does. Far more useful for people to find what they are looking for. Dream Focus 04:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Make it a section in the main article then. You added empty columns, and a basic list of links this short doesn't need a standalone page. Otherwise draftify. Reywas92^Talk 13:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have reverted the change as a bad edit (explanation in edit summary). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Violates WP:SELFREF, and important topics can be covered in the main topic article much better than a list of random links can provide. Anyone who's interested can also make a sidebar for main topics if they want. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Also changing my position to Delete or Merge, given the important links are probably already in Template:Statistical mechanics, etc. It wasn't really a very good index with only 20 articles anyways. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of mathematical theories

List of mathematical theories (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)

WP:INDISCRIMINATE: This list seems aimed to list all articles having "theory" in their title. It present at the same level some wide areas of mathematics (set theory) and some very specialized method (Iwasawa theory). So, it does not contain any relevant encyclopedic content. D.Lazard (talk) 08:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. D.Lazard (talk) 08:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The nominator is saying that WP:LSC is not satisfied in a meaningful way. Having "theory" included in the title was probably good enough in 2004, when the list page was first created. The list is hardly complete: sieve theory isn't there, for example. While mathematicians recognise as "theory" any coherent area with enough definitions, results and characteristic ideas, this kind of theory is nothing like a scientific theory. So the list may be of little or no help to non-mathematicians. I would suggest first a division by subject headings, such as "theories in topology". I mean, this is potentially a useful list, just as a list of problems or a list of theorems would be, but there should be more explanation and apparatus. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. For having this article, we must have a sourced definition of the concept of a mathematical theory; the unsourced three lines of Mathematical theory are far to be sufficients. Moreover, in mathematics, some other words are used with a similar meaning, such as "geometry", "algebra", "calculus", and "analysis". For example, projective geometry means "projective-space theory"; commutative algebra stands for "commutative-ring theory", to be compared with ring theory, which deals with non-necessarily commutative rings; integral calculus stand for "theory of integrals"; real analysis stands for "theory of real functions". So, without a reliably sourced definition of the concept of a mathematical theory, this article is pure original synthesis. D.Lazard (talk) 11:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a reasonable argument, but I would like to see it on Talk:List of mathematical theories because there is plenty to say. To use your examples, axiomatic set theory is a number of choices of axiomatic theory, while Iwasawa theory was originally "Iwasawa's analogue of the Jacobian", which John Coates renamed, and over the course of half a century became a major subfield of algebraic number theory, which is not an axiomatic theory so much as the study of algebraic number fields. To be really helpful, this sort of information, including the genesis of a theory, should be tabulated. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but rename to list of mathematical theories and subfields. Such a list could have sections for eponymous theories such as Morse theory and Iwasawa theory, and for other special cases. The distinction between commutative algebra and the subfield of ring theory dealing with commutative rings is that commutative algebra is also concerned with modules over such rings. That is seen in the way the earlier name ideal theory was revised, modules over a ring being a generalisation of ideals in a ring, an innovation in the school of Emmy Noether. The list has been harmless enough for 20 years. No need to delete, when we can adjust the scope a bit. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goodnight Scholars Program

Goodnight Scholars Program (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)

Subject is not independently notable (and notability is not inherited from its unquestionably notable parent organization). ElKevbo (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Science, Engineering, Mathematics, Technology, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Just do a WP:BOLD redirect to James_Goodnight#Wealth_and_philanthropy, where this is already mentioned; no need to have an AFD for this obvious ATD. Reywas92^Talk 01:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I like the redirect ATD proposed by Reywas92. I guess there's some benefit in having it the result of a AfD (now that we're already here) in that it's harder to revert. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Barbell graph (via WP:PROD on 24 April 2024)