Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summa (mathematics)

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 delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Summa (mathematics)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A stub which has seldom been expanded. Too few meaningful content. Only definition and nothing more. No more explanation. Just one link to other languages. Appropriate in Wiktionary but not here in Wikipedia. UNITE TOGETHER, STRIVE FOR SURVIVAL! 14:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. UNITE TOGETHER, STRIVE FOR SURVIVAL! 14:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Integral#Historical notation with {{R to section}}. Alternatively, and arguably better, redirect to Long s#Modern usage to Coastside (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Long s#Modern usage, per Coastside. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect. This is an English encyclopedia, not a Latin dictionary. Neither of the redirect targets above is good: integral symbol doesn't even mention this supposed name for the symbol, and Long s is mostly about something else than the use of this symbol for integration (and to the extent that it goes on in too much detail about the integration symbol, the content there should be moved to integral symbol). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Integral#Historical notation does mention summa. I'm not sure I agree it's a simple translation from Latin. The indefinite integral doesn't mean 'sum', and Leibniz's use of the word in the sense of indefinite integral, which he wrote ſumma was new. Coastside (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - On second assessment, I now don't believe that the target covers this concept sufficiently to warrant redirecting to it. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 04:07, 28 October 2021 (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.