Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Finished mathematics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page has been discussed on two user pages (copied below) and nobody seems to have heard about this notion. This kind of discussion really belong here, whatever the outcome. Gadykozma 17:40, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Copied from Michael Hardy's talk page (a copy exists in Paul August's talk page too):

Hi Michael, have you ever heard of this term before? Does it have wide usage? Paul August 22:03, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

I have not frequently (if ever) encountered it other than in this Wikipedia article. It seems the first 20 or so Google hits on it come from that article as well. So if it's frequently used, I'd guess it's only within a relatively small philosophy-of-mathematics community. Michael Hardy 01:39, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I've never heard of it either. It was created by the same guy who created Folk mathematics, and who both may be User:JRR Trollkien. I'm wondering if this is a made up term. Paul August 06:54, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Copied from Charles Matthews's talk page.

Hi Charles, have you ever heard of this term before? Does it have wide usage? Paul August 22:08, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

As far as I know, this is someone's personal sociological term. Charles Matthews 09:14, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Never heard of it either. VfD? Gadykozma 18:19, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: idiosyncratic term. Also delete redirects mainstream mathematics, accepted mathematics, and published mathematics. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:34, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, the two conversations seem justification enough. --Golbez 21:22, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism. Some guy trying to push his personal ideas about mathematics. — Gwalla | Talk 22:29, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Boy, that's annoying; I just looked at this the other day and thought it was something actual. Floorsheim 22:30, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • delete. never heard the expression. regards, High on a tree 03:52, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Pages refering to it can simply be made to refer to Peer review. Gadykozma 05:07, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Concur- redirect the whole mess to Peer review. -FZ 18:04, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, for reasons described above. Andris 09:23, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete and also delete redirects as mentioned above. Paul August 14:38, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC) I've changed my mind see below. Paul August 05:25, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • The term is perhaps idiosyncratic. Although I see no great need for this page, I don't find it objectionable either. In certain contexts, the term would be understood without explicit explanation to mean just what the articles says it means (or said, last time I looked). Michael Hardy 21:15, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I think this kind of article gives wikipedia a bad image. It was one of the first pages I saw on wikipedia, since the title looked so enticing, and I was really disappointed to see that how unenlightening it was. A link into a page called "finished mathematics" which leads to this kind of content is just a trap for readers. Dead links and links into useless contents waste readers time. Gadykozma 21:31, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • In it's current incarnation, I don't have any objections to the content of the article either. But shouldn't it be deleted precisely be cause it is (probably) idiosyncratic? It seems to me that an encyclopedia (unlike a textbook for example) should not be the originator of terminology. Paul August 21:45, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Isn't it interesting how long it has survived, with repsectable edits, and little of the original left? Rich Farmbrough 23:43, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Google search

  • It appears to me that this is a keep, would be nice if you reviewed the supplied google links and think again [1], [2], (another version of former quote [3]), ([4]), [5] , [6] it looks like the expression is used in our own Philosophy of mathematics. This is the search I did. I went through 34 of 59 hits, there are probably more relevant hits. Judging from those I have supplied I think it is a valid and not invented subject, and the current content also seem to reflect what is meant by it. --Dittaeva 21:08, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Ok, after looking at the links above I agree that it looks like this is a real term, so I'm rescinding my vote to delete. When I did my own google, after first wondering about this, all I got were bunches of references to wikipedia. I wasn't as smart as you to add "-wikipedia" and "-encyclopedia" to my search, thanks for being more thorough than I was. - also I had noticed the usage in philosophy of mathematics but it looked like to me that the user who added the term to that article (142.177.10.33) might be the same person who created the term in the first place. Paul August 05:25, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
Dittaeva, first of all, thanks for doing the google search and supplying these links! However, after reading them carefully I mostly disagree that they are a proof that finished mathematics is a term rather than just a combination of two words that make sense together. In none of them is finished mathematics quoted or italicized or put in a context in which it is clear that the author is discussing some known object. For example, the last link you gave refers to it as "finished" mathematics, i.e. only the word finished is in quotes, actually proving that it is not a term. I keep my delete vote. Gadykozma 08:32, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It true that they are not italicize or anything similar, but as I have understood the texts, they are infact referring to a term.--Dittaeva 09:39, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Whether it's real or not, it should be merged into mathematics or philosophy of mathematics. - Centrx 23:21, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Why not merge and redirect then? --Dittaeva 23:58, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • The question whether it is real is important. If its real, it should be merged and redirected. Only if its phony should it be actually deleted. Gadykozma 08:32, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, it was "plan B". It think it should be deleted, but if the consensus somehow turns out that it's real, it should still be merged rather than retained as a separate article. - Centrx 18:27, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So I guess this article was deleted. Was its content incorporated into some other article? Paul August 18:40, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

Is there any way to see the original content? Paul August 18:47, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

I've copied it from google cache to one of my user pages. Please let me know if you use it for anything. I suppose it can also restored by voting for it on votes for undeletion. This is the problem with the current deletion system btw, its not very wiki. --Dittaeva 23:07, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thanks Dittaeva, I've copied this text to one of my user page, for possible incorporation into other articles. Paul August 20:04, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC) I will let you know if I do anything else with it. Paul August 20:08, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
This text seems like the one that was deleted, so I think there is no reason to undelete for the purpose of seeing the original text (there may be other reasons, of course). Gadykozma 18:00, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
As far as I can remember, this seems like the most recent version of the article - so, for my purposes - possible incorporation into other articles, I agree there is no reason to undelete. Paul August 20:04, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)