Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pulation square

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep. Scimitar 16:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pulation square

This article makes no sense except to the brilliantly mathmatical minded like Neil Mallender, who do maths for fun in their spare time. Either dumb it down a little, at least explain what it does, and in laymans terms PLEASE (Im too stupid to understand complicated maths like that) - Big al kicks ass 09:54, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a perfectly fine math stub. Paul August ☎ 15:19, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article being too technical is no reason for deletion. By the way, I don't understand the article either, even though I do maths both for fun and for a living, and I doubt it can be explained to the general public. -- Jitse Niesen 15:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article can and should be made more accessable. I will work on that (someday). Paul August ☎ 20:02, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Ridiculous; no one said category theory is easy, its not called abstract nonsense for nothing. Anyway, 95% of all math articles on WP are as complicated, or more so, than this. linas 16:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: User:Big al kicks ass professes to be a 14-year-old on his user page. I wish to file a complaint; 14-years olds should not be VfD'ing math articles. linas 17:00, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I reported this VfD as an act of vandalism (by an extremely foul-mouthed newcomer). See Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress linas 17:32, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a bit excessive. I have made more than enough blunders and twice this guy's age. :) Oleg Alexandrov 21:00, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I agree that the article is very complicated, and from a highly abstract area of math very removed from reality. Actually, as applied mathematician I should maybe wonder why people waste time on things like that. :) But that article is perfectly good math, and something being complicated is no reason or deletion. Oleg Alexandrov 16:59, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Overtechnicality is no reason for deletion.-Splash 17:05, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep obviously. — Trilobite (Talk) 17:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, of course. I advise our overeager VfD contributor to try using a talk page next time. However, they're right that it really wouldn't hurt to eventually give some simpler explanation or examples. Deco 01:01, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Valid mathematical topic. JamesBurns 03:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Notable mathematical concept even if the numerically-challenged such as myself have difficulty understanding it. Capitalistroadster 00:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Textbook case of why speedy keep should be an option. — Phil Welch 03:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but I would view this as evidence that speedy keep is unnecessary. The first four comments, and notification on the relevant project page, took less than two hours, and have much the same effect as a speedy keep. Plus someone has promised to expand the page, which is a good thing. Septentrionalis 16:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.