- List of quadratic irrational numbers set in a systematic order (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
There was a sudden deletion discussion (14 December – 16 December), then User:postdlf deleted the page, and then I gave a further (more detailed) Keep argument which was not anymore accepted and informed this admin at User talk:Postdlf#At least one week deletion discussion, please. I assumed mathematical editors recognize that every quadratic irrational number has and can be exactly specified by its unique periodic continued fraction expansion. The article Periodic continued fraction (deleted page contains a link to it) informs about that. Maybe this lacking awareness caused the sudden deletion impulse? Please allow at least one week for regular deletion discussions. Thank you. MathLine (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse (as original nominator) a perfectly good WP:SNOW close, based on the unanimous support for delete based on policy. Even if MathLine had participated and voted keep their one !vote set against the eight delete !votes would not have changed the outcome, and made it still likely to be Snow closed, especially as their arguments address none of the reasons for deletion.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 01:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse- Unanimous consensus, based on sound reasoning. There is no possible way it could have been closed differently. Reyk YO! 05:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Advise MathLine (talk · contribs) to read Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, no defect in deletion process. Suggest User:MathLine takes the article to a more specialist site (and I will be happy to provide the content of the deleted article for this purpose). Stifle (talk) 12:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - 7 deletes, original research, and a wp:SNOW. No question here at all. Neonchameleon (talk) 23:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:JohnBlackburne personally noticed this further—more detailed—Keep argument (see [1] ) of me and undid it. Mathematician leaders here have probably stressful university seats, so that they could tend to wave away all that which looks uncommon seen from their special working branch. In such a job I would probably also simply dismiss a Nova fractal article in bad times if its pictures were only slightly less colorful. Having the greatness to accept such an article requires a look into the depths of its pro arguments. Such a deeper look would unveil in this case, that the with WP:OR associated WP:CALC makes the way totally free for this Wikipedia. If all the own calculations and computations in Nova fractal, Exact trigonometric constants and Arithmetic functions for providing these further high-quality views into the nature (/consistence/rules) of the numbers, why then no simple further mentioning and listing of periodic continued fractions which are ordered firstly by the sum of all for their notation necessary terms, then lexicographically and then by the begin position of the period from left to right? Why this inequality??
This is just a clarifying immediate conclusion of the statements about the connection between quadratic irrational numbers and Periodic continued fractions, mentioned in this article!
Note that by writing e.g. film content summaries you also have to perform immediate linguistic conclusions to make it an own text. You cannot forbid in a mathematical context what you allow in a narrative context. Why this unequal treatment?
(Of course the mathematical profession also needs advertisement with great pictures. How convincing is it, that http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CurlicueFractal.html 's with quadratic irrational numbers as the angle defining variable s show a special regular pattern, specially dependent on their periodic continued fraction properties, and hence with great potential for fractal pictures: a certain apparently unique shape for every certain continued fraction period, which repeats unrotated and at every repetition with increasing size and some of them develop only within certain angles?) --MathLine (talk) 00:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and directed you here, which is the proper place to dispute a close. The rest of your post is irrelevant as it does not address the reasons for deletion, or closure, in any meaningful way. I would though suggest you read WP:OTHERSTUFF, which covers how relevant other articles are to this discussion.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- On this same "Wiki:" site there's also the section WP:PERNOMINATOR which advises not to give simple further amounts of votes with identical content of prior votes and advises to state your true position in your own words to assure others that you are not hiding a WP:IDONTLIKEIT position, and the section WP:SUPPORT which also emphasize the importance of argument quality over quantity. — I clearly mentioned these other articles to clarify the meaning of WP:CALC, a section which allows immediate conclusions additionally also in calculation contexts. WP:OTHERSTUFF (which mainly tells that other articles of the same topic never exclusively justify article notabilities) of course doesn't forbid such a mentioning. It is actually very mean and scornful to ignore my important WP:CALC-argument. I also already argumented with WP:CALC in this detailed statement which you deleted at the original AfD page. The topic is not any invention of "some" people in this world, it is basic math and routine teaching matter in literally every country of the world and for millions of people around the world. So why do you nonetheless ignore my argumentation with WP:CALC, JohnBlackburne ? --MathLine (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it's irrelevant. You haven't even tried to address the concerns, that it was original research, i.e. all your own work, and unsourced. No-one !voted 'per nom', everyone gave reasons. No-one said 'I don't like it'. Yes 'quality over quantity' is important: as in concise and precise reasoning, not paragraphs that veer badly off-topic. Really this has the similar snowball's chance in hell of going your way as the original AfD, but you might at least read the arguments given in the AfD and here. You seem to be describing an entirely different discussion to the AfD in question.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse WP:SNOW closures should be avoided if there's reasonable cause to believe that more time or additional scrutiny might alter the debate, but it doesn't seem likely that would have happened in this case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think the point being made by this article is that the quadratic irrationals are denumerable, a point that can usefully be illustrated by demonstration, similar to how most of us learned that (for example) the rationals are denumerable. It might be helpful for the article creator to explain that and then find some sources pointing to the methodology he has identified for illustrating the point. This article is not ready for mainspace but perhaps some work on it in userspace or off-wiki could improve things. On the other hand, my attendance at HCSSiM was in 1978 and 1979, so if I've missed the boat here I'm sure some of our more mathematically capable editors will say so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course even the entire algebraic irrationals are denumerable while as roots of certain polynoms they can all be exactly specified by the finite coefficients and a further ordinal number of the root of these polynoms (Main article: Countable set). Less trivial is, that it seems to be just literally infinitely complicated to arrange a bijection between the naturals and the entire algebraic irrationals. And a bijection between naturals and quadratic irrationals is topic of this list. So with your constructive estimation it seems now possible to
- Please read WP:VAGUEWAVE, WP:SUPPORT, WP:MAJORITY ← all links to one long page (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions) which severely calls for discussion contributions with quality and independent arguing. --MathLine (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have read those, probably more than you have, and frankly if you read WP:CONSENSUS you will see that there is as much validity to evidence as a lack of evidence when determining consensus. There was a clear community consensus for delete. I would also like to remind you that the DRV mainly a place to discuss the process in which I am stating no errors in judgement were made in terms of the closing. There were some questionable delete !votes but nothing to remotely indicate a wrongful closure. I would also like to point out that you have incorrectly attempted to apply WP:ATA in the vast majority of times you have cited it and that numerous editors have pointed this out to you already. I also believe you are under the impression that in disqualifying other editor's opinions at the AFD, you will dodge the fact that your own argument did not address the concerns of the nominator and other editors that reviewed your keep rationale. Mostly because that argument was not based upon the understanding and designed intentions of those policies and guidelines. Wikilawyering every comment with policies links is also ironically discouraged. I understand your frustration in this process as it is admittedly very complicated. That said, I mean this very sincerely that informing some very well read editors above of some basic policies that you are fundamentally applying incorrectly will not advance your argument very far. I would suggest looking at a number of first article guides to help you understand how to better improve the subjects your are interested in than battling it out to save this one list. Mkdwtalk 01:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- -- Jreferee (talk) 05:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
