Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proof of Stein's example

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 (non-admin). Gary King (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proof of Stein's example

Proof of Stein's example (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

The page consists in its entirety of a single mathematical proof. But Wikipedia is not a textbook.--Hq3473 (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy keep There is a long discussion on the relevance of proofs in Wikipedia in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Proofs. There are many opinions about whether proofs should be included and in what format. There is no consensus yet but it seems that a large majority supports keeping proofs in WP in one form or another. Please participate in that discussion rather than nominating specific articles from Category:Article proofs for deletion. --Zvika (talk) 07:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as per Zvika. This is not a textbook article - proofs are found in textbooks, but so are definitions, and we do not disallow definitions. "This article is a proof" is not, on its own, sufficient grounds for deletion. Gandalf61 (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  This is not even a complete proof. The last sentence of the article: "The reader may prove this as an exercise" gives away the nature of the article -- it is a textbook.--Hq3473 (talk) 06:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  Fair enough -- I have removed that sentence since stylistically it is inappropriate. However, this does not affect the basic question of whether or not proofs should be included in WP, and that discussion should be carried out in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Proofs, not here. --Zvika (talk) 07:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• merge back into Stein's example. Stein's example is a somewhat counter intuitive result, as such it deserves a more thorough explanation and justification, the Resolution of the "paradox" section does this to some extent but enquiring minds will need justification through a sketch proof. As it stands neither Stein's example or Proof of Stein's example is entirely satisfactory and a combined article offers several advantages. I would be happier if this proof could be verified with a citation of a place where this proof has been published. --Salix alba (talk) 11:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. This was apparently a spinoff of Stein's example to avoid having the proof taking over most of the article, and I don't see a problem in that. It can be seen as a case of summary style. --Itub (talk) 14:13, 19 February 2008 (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.