Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathematical logic glossary
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was delete. Reasons to delete far outweigh the (lacking) reasons to keep. Having other useless articles is never a good reason for an useless article to be kept. And J.smith's request for it to be kept if an article doesn't already exist is negated by the wonder that is Category:Mathematics, probably the most complete category I've ever just looked up to see what was on it, and its subset dedicated to this, Category:Mathematical logic. Proto///type 12:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Basically an empty list that has not changed since October 3, 2005. Deprodded by User:Freakofnurture. —Mets501 (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Paul Carpenter 16:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per wiki is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Ydam 17:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not much of a glossary. W guice 17:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as per before. I didn't de-prod it, by the way. Examine the history more closely [1]. — Jun. 17, '06 [17:41] <freak|talk>
- Week keep and rename to List of mathematical terms (if an article like that dosn't already exist that is. ---J.S (t|c) 20:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. We have dozens of other glossaries on subjects less notable than mathematical logic (take a look at Category:Glossaries). Also, emptiness is not a criteria for deletion (otherwise all stubs would be deleted).-PlasmaDragon 21:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Nothing intrinsicaly wrong with a glossary. Don't rename to "List of mathematical terms". Paul August ☎ 02:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the problem is that this has existed since October 3, 2005 with absolutely no improvement, and it does not look like anyone is willing to improve it (as of now). —Mets501 (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless improved during the AfD period. 4 entries does not a glossary make. (I could probably improve it, but I'm too familiar with the terms to know what requires a definition.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added some definitions.-PlasmaDragon 20:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Another article kept on the basis that 'it might be expanded' though every one knows it won't be. This sort of half-cooked work does WP a disservice. BlueValour 03:00, 23 June 2006 (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.