Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of well known mathematical formulas

Add links
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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 17:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a hard call, so I'm exercisigin my judgement. Several said the entry to be kept only if changed to some titles. For instance current title (about "standard classes") has a HUGE systemic bias. The titles as "known by many" are way ambiguous, etc... There's also a majority of delete votes (almost twice as keeps) but I concur with several math fellows here that this list is not the proper approach. However there are some interesting ideas (an entry about NAMED formulas, etc.... and I want to chip one more: how about an entry about trig formulas, one about calc formulas, etc so you can put them in context and explain the relationships between them (as they relate to the same topic) so to avoid the list gathering for the sake of gathering (and then using a category to group those themed lists)?

List of well known mathematical formulas[edit]

The Wikibook Introduction to Astrophysics has a page on the topic of: Laws and Formulae
The Wikibook Trigonometry has a page on the topic of: Sum and Difference Formulas
The Wikibook Trigonometry has a page on the topic of: Trigonometric Formula Reference
The Wikibook Electronics has a page on the topic of: Formulas
Wikibooks has a book on the topic of: Collection of Mathematical Formulas

Delete title is far too broad; there's no way this list could ever be sufficiently inclusive while staying within a reasonable length for an article. --Trovatore 03:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Trovatore. Dmharvey File:User dmharvey sig.png Talk 04:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if it got longer, it could be split. Bizarre nomination. Kappa 06:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I have no objection to a list of well-known articles. I could sort of enjoy a list with Euler's formula, de Moivre's formula, Pythagoras'. But a+b=c? That isn't a meaningful formula. I might change my vote if the article improved a lot. -lethe talk 07:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • After thinking about it some more, seeing the improvements made to the article, and reading other peoples votes and comments, I'd like to change my weak delete to a normal delete lethe talk 23:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if someone actually puts some work into this. I could turn into a intresting page eventually.--Ewok Slayer 07:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¿Should we change it to Significant mathematical formulas? as some of these formulas will only be know to people who have taken their respective math classes.--Ewok Slayer 08:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not useful article. If someone is looking for some formula on Wikipedia, there are better starting points (like articles about the objects in question). Samohyl Jan 07:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Much as per Iethe. This could become an interesting starting point but needs a lot of work. Dlyons493 11:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ewok Slayer has done some good work and the list is less trivial now. But it's still a grab-bag of things thrown together for no obvious reason. I still think that no list produced under this title is going to be anything else, because as I said in the nomination, the title is far too broad. --Trovatore 16:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)*'[reply]
  • Strong keep - Definitely must keep, for people who are generally looking for formulas should use this, but for a more exact formula then, perhaps they should use the appropriate article. --Kilo-Lima 16:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as useful list. Well done to Ewok Slayer for his work on this list. Capitalistroadster 17:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Arbitrary list of questionable use, and poorly written. "Well-known to whom?" is the key question here.--David Dumas 17:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this looked like List of equations I would support its inclusion, but few formulae have their own articles. KingTT 18:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The list might possibly make sense under a title like List of formulas taught in standard mathematics classes, and I suggest that this is possibly the original intent. A title like that would provide some sort of logical rationale for the choice of the results presented. The intro could specify that it's talking about classes presented in a standard sequence, meaning up to basic calculus. (After that, things start to branch out.) --Trovatore 18:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Impossibly broad. There are thousands which are well known to scientists and mathematicians. Vonspringer 21:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. useful list. --Vsion 22:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't need yet another poorly written, unmaintainable, impossible list. It could be useful if it was split up by category, and referenced real articles. Editorial energies would be much better expended by improving the articles in Category:Elementary mathematics, most of which cover the topics in this list. Elementary math topics on WP are in terrible condition, and creating something like this list does not improve that situation in any way. linas 23:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I'm not sure this is encyclopedic, but it's at least handbookic. I have before me Pocket Ref, Thomas J. Glover, 1999, Sequoia and it's full of stuff like "Formulas for electricity: 1) Ohm's law, 2) Resistors in series, 3) Resistors in parallel," etc. CRC Standard Math Tables (does anyone still use those?) has its tables of derivatives, integrals, mensuration, etc. An argument for something like this is that if you know there is a formula but you don't know what it's called, you might not be able to find it by name, but you be able to find it in an article like this. On the other hand... well... it's listcruft. I agree with Trovatore that I suspect this of being the sort of thing you'd bring in as a "cheat sheet" for an examination that allows it... Dpbsmith (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC) But only if it is moved to List of well known mathematical formulae Dpbsmith (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept this should be renamed to List of mathematical formulas per naming conventions. Any formulas that are not well-known or notable don't belong on a list in the first place. - Mgm|(talk) 10:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Formulae! Formulae! True, I just checked and discovered that some debased, meretricious so-called "modern" dictionaries accept the barbaric and incorrect spelling of the plural, but I never, never will! O tempora, O Moses! Dpbsmith (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mores! Mores! Even debased, so-called modern dictionaries of quotations won't use "Moses" (I hope). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hugely and impossibly broad topic. We could never fit this into one article. It is spelled 'formulae' as well. --Bucephalus [[User talk:Bucephalus|<small>talk to me</small>]] 11:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. CRC Standard Math Tables are still used, as are other handbooks with mathematical formulas. The problem is that these are complete books, so we need to be extremely selective if we want to keep the list within a reasonable length for an article. On the one hand, I think this can be done in principle; on the other hand, I don't expect this will be done in practice. I am not happy with the list, and I shared my worries with the author at User talk:Member#List of well known mathematical formulas a few days ago, but I cannot find a good enough reason to vote to delete the list, hence I abstain for the moment. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "can be done in principle... don't expect this will be done in practice." Nicely put, and my own thoughts precisely. When are we going to get the article rating feature turned on? Dpbsmith (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't believe this is encyclopedic or manageable. Eusebeus 14:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If there are other lists on Wikipedia, then why not keep this one? --Member 21:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The difficulty is that it is not at all clear what belongs in this list, even with the new title. To me, it sounds too much like list of well known English phrases. You could include "the cat sat on the mat" and "peace in our time" and "these aren't the droids we're looking for" and "I think therefore I am", but where do you stop? (See also Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Appropriate topics for lists.) Dmharvey 22:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(that should have been "I have a bad feeling about this") :-) Dmharvey 23:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no such thing as standard mathematics classes. Conscious 07:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • My bad on that one; I suggested it and Member took me up on it. On reflection a better name would be List of formulas from elementary mathematics. That's at least plausibly a manageable and useful list, and seems to be more or less the original intent, provided Elementary mathematics is defined to include basic calculus (which I think it should be). --Trovatore 07:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to list of common mathematical formulae. There is no reason why we can't have an easy-reference list of formulae. Charles Matthews 10:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. On the condition that its title is changed to something more specific, such as "formulas commonly known by many." With the current tile, it could be interpreted as: "okay, who are these forulas most well iknown to?" Now, I know it refers to those that are commonly known, but it needs to be specific. The Wookieepedian 19:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete under any of the names so far proposed. (Is continually redirecting the article appropriate while it's under AfD?) Cannot be encyclopedic. Could be appropriate for wikibooks, if the title is established. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I see no use or purpose. Fredrik | tc 06:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as it is, the article lists rather lame formulas, not notable in their own right. I think an article which lists "named" formulas (like Euler's formula and so on) might be a good idea, but this is just a collection of trivial school stuff.  Grue  17:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Half-cooked, unencyclopedic, and not helpful. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the updated list. Klonimus 06:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It seems this page was created for the purpose of listing high school algebra/trig formulae, calculus formulae, etc. I note that most of the supporters of this page seem to have this idea also. There may be nothing wrong with a page entitled "list of common trigonometric formulae" etc., but the current title (and all redirects so far) are misleading. I recommend deletion and that people interested in creating lists of trig formulae,etc., do so under an appropriate heading. --C S (Talk) 22:36, 24 November 2005 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_well_known_mathematical_formulas&oldid=1082619858"