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.
Potentially merge with Corner solution to make article "Corner and Interior solutions", or something to that effect. While nothing appears to fall under
WP:MINREF, therefore lack of citations is not an issue, I don't think it deserves its own article any more than it deserves being part of a merged article.
John M Wolfson (
talk)
03:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Question: Are the two topics at the dab page
Interior solution related? A
WP:BCA might be appropriate instead of the current 2 entry page there. @
Sugyoin: If you're alright with a redirect to
corner solution, you can just copy what you've done over (with an appropriate edit summary) and redirect it yourself. The other page might provide
relevant context. There's no real need to discuss this at AfD unless
Onel5969 insisted it should be deleted after you removed the PROD (anyone can do that for whatever reason) and since redirect is pretty much the same as delete here there'll be even less reason if you choose to do that.
Alpha3031 (
t •
c)
05:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose redirect - an interior solution is the opposite of a corner solution. The topic is notable and probably merits a standalone article - however the current uncited (and though not wrong, close to a DICTDEF) article may merit TNT.
Icewhiz (
talk)
11:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete and redirect to
Mathematical optimization which does a much better job of explaining what an interior solution is. The only substantive content to this article is the (uncited) claim that "I would buy A and B" is an interior solution. That makes no sense at all. First of all, it's hard to see how that amounts to a solution at all (what was the original problem?) and secondly, it's not an interior solution if A and B are on the edge of the set. This is a worthless page with nothing to be saved.
SpinningSpark13:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Mathematical optimization: the article has no content worth keeping, and the topic is already covered acceptably at the proposed target. If someone wants to write an actual article with this title later, that would be fine. --
JBL (
talk)
15:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment. If this topic is worth an article, and it gets deleted because in it's present form it is unworthy, and then created later as a substantial article, then the history should get restored later. The "Economics" section looks like one of those occasions where someone assumes the reader has a context when in fact the relevant context should be explained.
Michael Hardy (
talk)
17:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)reply
I don't agree with that. The history should be restored if a new article used the old one to build on, but that seems unlikely. Think about it, someone spends weeks constructing a well sourced and well written article for Wikipedia. Next thing they know, some irrelevant history is added apparently showing they did not create it. That's against the spirit of the attribution requirement of the CC license, if not the actual letter.
SpinningSpark17:31, 18 April 2019 (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.
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.
Potentially merge with Corner solution to make article "Corner and Interior solutions", or something to that effect. While nothing appears to fall under
WP:MINREF, therefore lack of citations is not an issue, I don't think it deserves its own article any more than it deserves being part of a merged article.
John M Wolfson (
talk)
03:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Question: Are the two topics at the dab page
Interior solution related? A
WP:BCA might be appropriate instead of the current 2 entry page there. @
Sugyoin: If you're alright with a redirect to
corner solution, you can just copy what you've done over (with an appropriate edit summary) and redirect it yourself. The other page might provide
relevant context. There's no real need to discuss this at AfD unless
Onel5969 insisted it should be deleted after you removed the PROD (anyone can do that for whatever reason) and since redirect is pretty much the same as delete here there'll be even less reason if you choose to do that.
Alpha3031 (
t •
c)
05:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose redirect - an interior solution is the opposite of a corner solution. The topic is notable and probably merits a standalone article - however the current uncited (and though not wrong, close to a DICTDEF) article may merit TNT.
Icewhiz (
talk)
11:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete and redirect to
Mathematical optimization which does a much better job of explaining what an interior solution is. The only substantive content to this article is the (uncited) claim that "I would buy A and B" is an interior solution. That makes no sense at all. First of all, it's hard to see how that amounts to a solution at all (what was the original problem?) and secondly, it's not an interior solution if A and B are on the edge of the set. This is a worthless page with nothing to be saved.
SpinningSpark13:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Mathematical optimization: the article has no content worth keeping, and the topic is already covered acceptably at the proposed target. If someone wants to write an actual article with this title later, that would be fine. --
JBL (
talk)
15:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment. If this topic is worth an article, and it gets deleted because in it's present form it is unworthy, and then created later as a substantial article, then the history should get restored later. The "Economics" section looks like one of those occasions where someone assumes the reader has a context when in fact the relevant context should be explained.
Michael Hardy (
talk)
17:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)reply
I don't agree with that. The history should be restored if a new article used the old one to build on, but that seems unlikely. Think about it, someone spends weeks constructing a well sourced and well written article for Wikipedia. Next thing they know, some irrelevant history is added apparently showing they did not create it. That's against the spirit of the attribution requirement of the CC license, if not the actual letter.
SpinningSpark17:31, 18 April 2019 (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.