Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uncertainties of the limits

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. - Mailer Diablo 11:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertainties of the limits

Article creator seems to be creating unneeded "alternative" pages to Indeterminate form and Limit of a function, inventing his own terminology along the way (infinitesimal order?) --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 02:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. KTC 03:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —KTC 03:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't even make sense. I know that first "uncertainty" was just solving for limits that otherwise go to zero by factoring out the x, and that was just homework for my classes in high school. The fact that the word "uncertainty" is right above a clear-cut answer is quite ironic. This is, at best, a term to be included with the article on mathematical limits. Zchris87v 05:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (no preference regarding redirect) per nom, and also because the article is fundamentally misleading. It identifies two general types of problems (0/0, ∞/∞), and then explains solutions which really only apply to narrow subsets of those problem types. For example, $\lim _{x\to 0}{\frac {\sin(kx)}{kx}}$ is a 0/0 problem which is solved using a method that is completely unrelated to what the article describes. Also, problems involving ∞/∞ limits are, to the best of my knowledge, not identified as a notable class of problems in the way 0/0 limit problems are. The article organizes information in a way that I think is unuseful and misleading. — xDanielx ^T/_C 08:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced OR, and also simply wrong - there are no "uncertainties" about the limits given as examples. Gandalf61 10:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gandalf61. JPD (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know why the nominator didn't just redirect this to the already existing article on the same topic. I've done that now. Michael Hardy 16:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not WP:BOLD enough to remove someone else's work without discussion, I guess. It's not like the content is blatantly wrong; just strangely written, strangely titled, and mostly redundant with the existing articles. --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 19:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think also these redirects ought to be deleted. "Uncertainties of the limits" is an impossible search term; what is it supposed to mean? In the cases of interest there is nothing uncertain about the limits. It may be meaningful to compare infinitesimals, but Indeterminate form does not tell you how to do this, so the current redirect is not optimal. A possible target is Infinitesimal; however, as a search term "Comparison of infinitesimal values" is quite unlikely. --Lambiam 17:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now that I think of it, delete the redirects. They're improbable misspellings. Michael Hardy 18:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone the creation of the redirects. --Lambiam 19:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Violates WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:NEO. Bearian 16:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no "OR" in this article---it's just stuff taught in all high schools. Nor is there any difficulty verifying it: it's taught in all high schools. It should be deleted simply because it's a silly name for an article on a topic about which a reasonable and reasonably named article already exists. Michael Hardy 01:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we already have this article. It's called L'Hôpital's Rule. --Cheeser1 02:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
L'Hôpital's rule is one specific way of dealing with (some) indeterminate forms, but the rule is not used in the articles under discussion. --Lambiam 06:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know. I was attempting to be humorous, since this AfD is a pretty obvious one (in content and by consensus). The material in this page falls under some other article, if anywhere, and L'Hôpital's Rule was the one that popped to mind. --Cheeser1 13:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, L'Hopital's rule is the wrong place. Indeterminate form is the right place (as already pointed out above). Michael Hardy 21:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is so irrelevant - I just mentioned the one that popped to mind. I was not making an effort to be precise, only to assert that the content belonged in a preexisting article, if anywhere. I already said this once, if it wasn't clear from my initial post, it should have been by now. Please don't pursue this matter further - it's irrelevant, and if all else fails, I retract my statement entirely (although not my "vote"). --Cheeser1 22:05, 5 September 2007 (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.