Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elementary group theory

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. Michig (talk) 08:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elementary group theory

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

textbook-ish -- Taku (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or maybe merge. The nomination is based on WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and normally I'd say that the article should be kept because of notability and the problems are fixable. But there is a more serious problem here. We already have a highly developed article on basic group theory at Group (mathematics) that seems to cover similar material as this article, plus much more. Group (mathematics) is already well-integrated with the more advanced article Group theory. I don't see how this article is sufficiently different from or superior to Group (mathematics) to merit keeping it. I appreciate the care and work that went into producing it, but it seems redundant. --Mark viking (talk) 06:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is written in a ludicrously non-elementary style. Warden (talk) 09:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Removed as off-topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Transwiki: I have to concur with Mark viking's analysis; there is simply too much overlap in subject matter and content between this and other articles to justify its existence as a standalone article. However, given the fact that the article is presently written in a style that is more textbook than encyclopedic, a possible solution would be to transwiki it over to Wikiversity as an educational math resource. --Mike Agricola (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We already have two better articles on this topic at Group (mathematics) and Group theory. I don't see a reason for having a third; this article does not seem more elementary than the coverage in Group (mathematics), for instance. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have dug a bit through the history. The article morphed from this, which could basically be taken as a first draft or blueprint of our current group (mathematics) article, to its current form which doesn't seem to serve any purpose over the former version. To understand the current, supposedly elementary, version the reader is supposed to understand what an algebraic structure is (seriously, follow that link), and to cope with the symbol $\perp$ to denote multiplication. I mean, really?! Mathematics writing, if sufficiently incompetent, is indistinguishable from trolling. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unfair criticism. A lot of thought when into this. Try reading past the statement of the axioms before jumping to conclusions. As for the group operation symbol, it was chosen for a reason (although a better one could be found). See the end of Talk:Elementary_group_theory#Denoting_a_2-ary_operation. Bomazi (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that whoever wrote the article this way didn't have reasons for doing so. I'm saying that, regardless of those reasons, the article is badly written twaddle that is certainly not illuminating of any supposedly "elementary" concept of group. And yes, I have read the article beyond the axioms. Do you have a point? Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be a little bit more specific that just saying "trust me, it's crap!". All I am seeing is a fairly standard development of the theory, with the same basic theorems you'll find in any introductory textbook (See for example Joseph J. Rotman, An Introduction to the Theory of Groups). At least until section 4 included, I don't see any serious error in the definitions, theorem statements or proofs, and they are all presented in a logical order. As written I'll say the article should be understandable by a first year university student. Can you give a bullet point list of exactly what you think is wrong here ? Maybe it is the fact that it is too advanced ? Whatever it is please be specific. Bomazi (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that I think the content is appropriate for a textbook, not an encyclopedia. But I don't think it is useless. Bomazi (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you had said that the article was written by a first year student, I might agree. "Understandable by" might possibly be true, although the article does seem to be written in a deliberately obscure manner: it begins with a confusing list of axioms, alternate axioms, all in a non-standard notation that no textbook would ever use, and takes it as given that people know all about binary operations. But let's grant that the reader will struggle and understand the article as written. Would this reader then actually be able to articulate what group theory is about? I leave it to you to decide. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2013 (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.