Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fiber derivative

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 keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fiber derivative[edit]

[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)

1. The definition of fiber derivative is short and intuitive, so it can be added directly to an article that needs one. 2. This article has been a stub for nearly 14 years. There is no need for an article whose sole purpose is to define what fiber derivative is. StrokeOfMidnight (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the meaning of the term may be ‘intuitive’ to the nominator, but the encyclopaedia is full of things that are self-evident or widely understood by many of us, but not all of us. This looks like a valid mathematics stub to me and we don’t delete things just because they’re stubs. I can see plenty of reliable independent sources which could be added, and there is possibly scope for expansion to cover applications of fibre derivatives. Mccapra (talk) 07:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current stub may be short but it is not intuitive as it is not written for our general readership, contrary to MOS:JARGON. Apart from improvement of the current content, the article might also be expanded by reference to papers which demonstrate the topic's notability such as Regularity properties of fiber derivatives associated with higher-order mechanical systems. So, per WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." See also WP:NEXIST; WP:NOEFFORT and WP:NOTPAPER. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It's clearly a thing [1] but whether it needs its own article is debatable. I have a suspicion this could be profitably merged to Lagrangian system, but the subject is really out of my bailiwick. In absence of clear merge target, it can stay as a valid stub. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:43, 5 November 2020 (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.