The result was delete. There's a rather broad community consensus that Wikipedia is not a textbook, and the "keep" opinions must accordingly be given less weight. Sandstein 10:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
This article blatantly violates WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, as it develops content from initial lemmas to propositions just as a textbook would, rather than like an encyclopedia. Since it is actually quite well written, I transwikied it, reformatted it, added some explanations and exercises and added it to a textbook on Wikibooks, where it fits much better. Felix QW ( talk) 14:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not have an encyclopedic article for Articles for deletion/Proofs involving the Moore–Penrose inverse ( search results). You may want to read Wikibooks's entry on " Topics in Abstract Algebra/Linear algebra" instead. |
Remark: The page has around 850 page views per month. ( https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2015-07&end=2022-01&pages=Proofs_involving_the_Moore%E2%80%93Penrose_inverse) Were this much less, I might not bother to discuss here. The number of page views can be seen as a coarse indication of the current value of the page to the public, at its current location. This is our benchmark value. Would the value change? I do not know. For the sake of argument, let us *assume* that the value does not change much when the page is moved.
Seriously: What are the advantages, exactly, of moving the proof page? Rules such as WP:NOTTEXTBOOK have purposes. Actions should actually serve these purposes.
@ XOR'easter What does "more appropriate place" mean, appropriate in what way?
@ David Eppstein What does "better home" mean, better in what way?
Answering "it would satsify the rule" isn't valid, the point of Wikipedia isn't to satisfy rules. What would be achieved by applying the rule?
Is Wikibooks a better place for the proofs? I have doubts.
We want to compare alternatives
[A] Keep in Wikipedia
[B] Move to Wikibooks
[C] Maintain a copy at both Wikibooks and Wikipedia
For the alternatives, let us imagine that we compare their effects at some point in the future, say ten years from now. Which alternative would yield a better Wikipedia? Which would yield a better world? Which would yield more value?
The point in removing something should be something like this:
As long as Wikibooks is stable (have all Wikimedia sites been stable so far?), I expect it to not really matter where the content is hosted, Wikibooks or Wikipedia. But I do expect it to matter where the content is maintained, at Wikibooks or Wikipedia.
-- RainerBlome ( talk) 00:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Coffee //
have a ☕️ //
beans // 18:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
The result was delete. There's a rather broad community consensus that Wikipedia is not a textbook, and the "keep" opinions must accordingly be given less weight. Sandstein 10:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
This article blatantly violates WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, as it develops content from initial lemmas to propositions just as a textbook would, rather than like an encyclopedia. Since it is actually quite well written, I transwikied it, reformatted it, added some explanations and exercises and added it to a textbook on Wikibooks, where it fits much better. Felix QW ( talk) 14:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not have an encyclopedic article for Articles for deletion/Proofs involving the Moore–Penrose inverse ( search results). You may want to read Wikibooks's entry on " Topics in Abstract Algebra/Linear algebra" instead. |
Remark: The page has around 850 page views per month. ( https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2015-07&end=2022-01&pages=Proofs_involving_the_Moore%E2%80%93Penrose_inverse) Were this much less, I might not bother to discuss here. The number of page views can be seen as a coarse indication of the current value of the page to the public, at its current location. This is our benchmark value. Would the value change? I do not know. For the sake of argument, let us *assume* that the value does not change much when the page is moved.
Seriously: What are the advantages, exactly, of moving the proof page? Rules such as WP:NOTTEXTBOOK have purposes. Actions should actually serve these purposes.
@ XOR'easter What does "more appropriate place" mean, appropriate in what way?
@ David Eppstein What does "better home" mean, better in what way?
Answering "it would satsify the rule" isn't valid, the point of Wikipedia isn't to satisfy rules. What would be achieved by applying the rule?
Is Wikibooks a better place for the proofs? I have doubts.
We want to compare alternatives
[A] Keep in Wikipedia
[B] Move to Wikibooks
[C] Maintain a copy at both Wikibooks and Wikipedia
For the alternatives, let us imagine that we compare their effects at some point in the future, say ten years from now. Which alternative would yield a better Wikipedia? Which would yield a better world? Which would yield more value?
The point in removing something should be something like this:
As long as Wikibooks is stable (have all Wikimedia sites been stable so far?), I expect it to not really matter where the content is hosted, Wikibooks or Wikipedia. But I do expect it to matter where the content is maintained, at Wikibooks or Wikipedia.
-- RainerBlome ( talk) 00:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Coffee //
have a ☕️ //
beans // 18:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)