Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inductive symbol

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 even if there were evidence that this was used widely, it would probably be merged to Mathematical induction. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 02:31Z

[edit] Inductive symbol

Inductive symbol (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article appears to be non-notable and useless. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Inductive symbol. JRSpriggs 09:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, but should be expanded by someone with more technical knowledge, as well as more citations given. Smee 10:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete. I can't verify it, because no sources are mentioned, and the article does not make sense making me think that it is not verifiable at all. For example, it says that the symbol is used to save time at examinations. However, the use of mysterious symbols in exams will cost students marks. Besides, the symbol seems to stand for "we have proven the statement for k = 1 and we have proven that if it holds for k = n, it also holds for k = n + 1, so it holds for all positive integers k". Such a sentence is usually not included in proofs, so you can save even more time by not putting the symbol in at all. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. At best, this is some kind of trick to help people remember how to do proofs by induction (and a poor one at that). Even this would not justify the existence of this article unless it can be shown that such a symbol is used in a widely-available math textbook. (If such a reference can be produced, I would change my vote, but this article would still need a lot of improvement.) This is not a salvagable article because, as far as I can tell, it is not a notable concept. VectorPosse 11:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence that this notation is verifiable, let alone widespread. Highly unlikely fo rthe reasons Jitse points out. JPD (talk) 11:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The article was created by new user User:Pboulus (talk) whose three edits are the IS article, its image, and a link in the mathematical induction article to the IS article. This user has been contacted on his/her talk page. The AfD should be left open until its natural end to give this user a chance to comment if they only check WP sporadically. The user may be able to provide sources, if this is actually notable in Australia. CMummert · talk 12:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I've never seen that notation before, but if it's used in a standard math textbook, it may be allowable, with severe cleanup. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. 0 Google hits, and no evidence that this is in use anywhere in the world.  --Lambiam^Talk 16:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It's probably a spoof, or a hoax. The only thing missing is the "fact" that in the Northern Hemisphere the spokes point to the left. DavidCBryant 17:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - a non-notable memory aid. No sources -- Whpq 18:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). ~ trialsanderrors 22:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion has been added to the list of Australia-related deletion debates. Spacepotato 23:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Likely a notation invented by some non-notable teacher that never left his classroom. Without citations, this should be deleted. --Polaron | Talk 01:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone can provide a respectable reference. -- Fropuff 04:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The claim that the symbol is designed to minimise the time spent notating the proof is not demonstrated in this article since no proof is demonstrated using the symbol. Regardless, the use of a symbol would not remove the need to demonstrate a proof mathematically, so v. little time would be minimised, even under exam conditions. I suspect this is either a hoax or one teacher's approach to a concept that students traditionally have difficulty grasping (mathematical induction). Kind regards, --Greatwalk 06:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless citations are added. -- Dominus 14:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a tutor in Maths in Australia who did two years of it at uni and have marked the odd exam, I've never seen it before, and it appears to fail WP:ATT Orderinchaos78 14:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

  Thanks for the Australian perspective. WP:ATT isn't a deletion criteria; if the topic was actually notable then the fact that the current article lacks sources would not justify deletion. CMummert · talk 15:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, unencyclopedic (not "non-notable"; that's a non-sequitur here). --Trovatore 21:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

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.