Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interior solution (optimization)

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 and redirect to Mathematical optimization. Sandstein 07:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interior solution (optimization)[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)

One user proposed deletion. (Take your pick... either wholly uncited, or simply as per WP:DICDEF.) However I think that we should keep this article or redirect to Corner solution. --Sugyoin (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See User:J heisenberg/A list of economics terms not in Wikipedia. Interior solution is a notable topic in economics. --Sugyoin (talk) 03:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially merge with Corner solution to make article "Corner and Interior solutions", or something to that effect. While nothing appears to fall under WP:MINREF, therefore lack of citations is not an issue, I don't think it deserves its own article any more than it deserves being part of a merged article. John M Wolfson (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Are the two topics at the dab page Interior solution related? A WP:BCA might be appropriate instead of the current 2 entry page there. @Sugyoin: If you're alright with a redirect to corner solution, you can just copy what you've done over (with an appropriate edit summary) and redirect it yourself. The other page might provide relevant context. There's no real need to discuss this at AfD unless Onel5969 insisted it should be deleted after you removed the PROD (anyone can do that for whatever reason) and since redirect is pretty much the same as delete here there'll be even less reason if you choose to do that. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Two topics at the dab page Interior solution are unrelated. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 17#Interior solution --Sugyoin (talk) 06:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose redirect - an interior solution is the opposite of a corner solution. The topic is notable and probably merits a standalone article - however the current uncited (and though not wrong, close to a DICTDEF) article may merit TNT. Icewhiz (talk) 11:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Mathematical optimization which does a much better job of explaining what an interior solution is. The only substantive content to this article is the (uncited) claim that "I would buy A and B" is an interior solution. That makes no sense at all. First of all, it's hard to see how that amounts to a solution at all (what was the original problem?) and secondly, it's not an interior solution if A and B are on the edge of the set. This is a worthless page with nothing to be saved. SpinningSpark 13:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mathematical optimization: the article has no content worth keeping, and the topic is already covered acceptably at the proposed target. If someone wants to write an actual article with this title later, that would be fine. --JBL (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this topic is worth an article, and it gets deleted because in it's present form it is unworthy, and then created later as a substantial article, then the history should get restored later. The "Economics" section looks like one of those occasions where someone assumes the reader has a context when in fact the relevant context should be explained. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree with that. The history should be restored if a new article used the old one to build on, but that seems unlikely. Think about it, someone spends weeks constructing a well sourced and well written article for Wikipedia. Next thing they know, some irrelevant history is added apparently showing they did not create it. That's against the spirit of the attribution requirement of the CC license, if not the actual letter. SpinningSpark 17:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Mathematical optimization as per Spinningspark. Right now this is simply a dicdef. And it's been up for over a week with zero improvement. Unlikely to be more than it currently is.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:44, 18 April 2019 (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.