Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vector (Gibbs-Heaviside)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Maxim(talk) 14:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Vector (Gibbs-Heaviside) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Yet another fork of Vector (geometric). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vector (physical), closed as delete. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per previous AfD / nom. Article has little/no content. --Cheeser1 (talk) 09:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Vector (geometric) or Rename to something like History of vectors. It has very little content other than an outline made from section titles, but the section titles suggest that this article, if fleshed out, would be a historical article. That is a legitimate encyclopedic topic. However, given the lack of actual content at present, it could also be merged into a history section in the main vector article. If the history section there expands too much, then it can be spun out again following summary style. --Itub (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Even in its current stub+outline form, the article is illuminating. It is doing the right thing by starting with lots of sources rather than lots of OR. It just needs tagging for improvement and then fleshing out. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A list of sources does not an article make. There is literally no content whatsoever in the body of the article. While this might be a great candidate for userfication, it is not acceptable for mainspace right now. --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see relevant editing policy which states:
- However, one of the great advantages of the Wiki system is that incomplete or poorly written first drafts of articles can evolve
- ...
- During this process, the article might look like a first draft—or worse, a random collection of notes and factoids. Rather than being horrified by this ugliness, we should rejoice in its potential... Colonel Warden (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perfection is not required. Content/context is. This is not a first draft - it is a zeroth draft. "A random collection of notes and factoids" I do not think includes the empty set of factoids. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has a lede, it has a good outline in the form of section headings and, most importantly, it has good list of sources such as the prize-winning History of Vector Analysis. It is already superior to many mathematics articles which are utterly lacking in sources such as Coordinate vector. It is they that are empty of the most important content. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This does not address my point. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't seem to have a point. I have cited clear policy showing that the current half-baked state of the article is acceptable and even desirable. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And I have explained that this policy applies to articles with content, not "outlines." Those are not articles. Lack of any/all context/content is a criteria for deletion (if not speedy deletion). If somebody has a draft of an entire article, then throw that policy around all you want. This isn't an article. It's not even a random collection of factoids. It's a random collection of section headings. And, relevant here, if someone is trying to make a content fork, there better at least be some content. It has been suggested, time and again, that this be USERFIED if necessary, until it is an actual article with some content. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Section headings which provide a structure to develop the lede are an example of the notes which the policy describes. Laying out an article in this way is a standard technique which is often recommended to writers. It is a sensible way of starting a new Wikipedia article which is fully supported by our policy. If you have any contrary policy to cite, please do so. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry if you think so, but a collection of section headings has never been enough for an article. Articles require content. If you believe otherwise, fine, I will no longer discuss this with you since this basis for your singular "keep" opinion doesn't even address the rest of the highly valid concerns raised here. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your unsupported assertion is contrary to the policy cited which states, One person can start an article with, perhaps, an overview or a few random facts. One simply has to click random article a few times to see that we have many stubby articles with less content than this one. Here's a fresh example: Rosetta, Belfast. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry if you think so, but a collection of section headings has never been enough for an article. Articles require content. If you believe otherwise, fine, I will no longer discuss this with you since this basis for your singular "keep" opinion doesn't even address the rest of the highly valid concerns raised here. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Section headings which provide a structure to develop the lede are an example of the notes which the policy describes. Laying out an article in this way is a standard technique which is often recommended to writers. It is a sensible way of starting a new Wikipedia article which is fully supported by our policy. If you have any contrary policy to cite, please do so. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And I have explained that this policy applies to articles with content, not "outlines." Those are not articles. Lack of any/all context/content is a criteria for deletion (if not speedy deletion). If somebody has a draft of an entire article, then throw that policy around all you want. This isn't an article. It's not even a random collection of factoids. It's a random collection of section headings. And, relevant here, if someone is trying to make a content fork, there better at least be some content. It has been suggested, time and again, that this be USERFIED if necessary, until it is an actual article with some content. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't seem to have a point. I have cited clear policy showing that the current half-baked state of the article is acceptable and even desirable. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This does not address my point. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has a lede, it has a good outline in the form of section headings and, most importantly, it has good list of sources such as the prize-winning History of Vector Analysis. It is already superior to many mathematics articles which are utterly lacking in sources such as Coordinate vector. It is they that are empty of the most important content. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perfection is not required. Content/context is. This is not a first draft - it is a zeroth draft. "A random collection of notes and factoids" I do not think includes the empty set of factoids. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Itub. This article is a POV/content fork on the history of vectors. Spatial vectors (physical vectors, whatever) were not originated by Heaviside and Gibbs. See the talk page Talk:Vector (geometric). For my own part, I have indicated that the modern usage of vector in connection with mathematical physics clearly predates the contributions of Gibbs/Heaviside. User:Arcfrk furthermore has suggested that we tread very lightly when it comes to the history of vectors. I agree wholeheartedly, and believe that any article which attempts to address the issue must be started with broader support than this one has. Issues surrounding the history need to be discussed at length. Editors involved need to attempt to reach consensus rather than creating a new article anytime they can't seem to get their own way. Silly rabbit (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the Vector (geometric) contains no history nor purports to present a history, how is this a fork of the topic? And why do editors have to ask the permission of you or User:Arcfrk before venturing to write an article on the topic? Please see WP:OWN. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. I fail to see how the WP:OWN charge is warranted here, and I strongly do not appreciate it. Please see Itub's remark above, which I was agreeing with. If more history can be included, and done so accurately and conforming with other Wikipedia policies, then by all means do so and rename the article to History of vectors. Otherwise it contains very little in the way of actual content, and the "history" it will undoubtedly attempt to present will be inaccurate. There is absolutely no doubt that Gibbs and Heaviside were not the originators of the notion of a spatial/physical vector. Furthermore, their vectors are indistinguishable from those of Hamilton and Clifford. Interested parties can go and read the thread at Talk:Vector (geometric) (or not, I really don't care.) Silly rabbit (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Essentially no content, POV fork. Quale (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge the text (but not the empty headings) into a "History" section of Vector (geometric). (I'm not sure there's much point leaving a redirect behind as no-one's going to type "Vector (Gibbs-Heaviside)" into the search box, but I guess it does no harm.) Userfy in addition to preserve the outline so the author can flesh it out if wished. If it expands considerably it can then be split into a "History of vectors" article. Qwfp (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. POV fork with little content. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No content. There is potential here for an article on the history of vectors, but a POV fork seems a bad way to start it. See also Silly rabbit's comments above. -- Fropuff (talk) 06:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It appears that there is no such thing as a "Gibbs-Heaviside vector". This google search returns 91 results, but excluding the obvious cases "Gibbs-Heaviside vector analysis" and "Gibbs-Heaviside vector algebra" yields only 6 hits, one of which is to the Wikipedia page, and for the others "Gibbs-Heaviside vector" is a modifier on some other word, such as "calculus" or "cross product" (which was actually invented by Lagrange, but I digress). Since the term "Gibbs-Heaviside vector" to refer to an actual type of vector appears to have been invented by this article, the article clearly needs to rethink its choice of nomenclature as it relies exclusively on a WP:NEOLOGISM and a rather idiosyncratic view of history. Silly rabbit (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Change and KEEP (I am the author.) If Silly Rabbit and others are agreeable to a keep on condition of a title change, then let me propose that the title be changed to Gibbsian Vector (my original source is a book, though 287 Google hits on the exact phrase "Gibbsian Vector" exist with its usage largely being a noun phrase, while 8,890 hits exist for the unquoted phrase of Gibbsian Vector). Perhaps this is best left as a future question to someone at the level of steward, but for now I might add that I would certainly like to believe that an established adjectival phrase merely used as a noun phrase in wikipedia would be within the bounds of wikipedia policy. --(talk) 01:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just on the off chance that this becomes useful to our discussion, my understanding is that the geometric representation of a complex number and its multiplication by another complex number was the origin of the algebraic "cross product" (i.e., vector product), while the multipication by its complex conjugate originated the idea of an algebraic "dot product" (i.e., scalar product). As far as I know, the first documented and accurate demonstration of such a geometric-algebraic interaction/operation was by Caspar Wessel in 1799. Were Silly Rabbit to provide a book reference discussing Lagrange's discovery of the "cross product," then I would gladly read it since his understanding differs from mine. (He or she is welcome to add the reference to my user page, should it prove too much of digression for this page.) --(talk) 01:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lagrange, J-L (1773). "Solutions analytiques de quelques problèmes sur les pyramides triangulaires" Silly rabbit (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Triple product#Note --Firefly322 (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lagrange, J-L (1773). "Solutions analytiques de quelques problèmes sur les pyramides triangulaires" Silly rabbit (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just on the off chance that this becomes useful to our discussion, my understanding is that the geometric representation of a complex number and its multiplication by another complex number was the origin of the algebraic "cross product" (i.e., vector product), while the multipication by its complex conjugate originated the idea of an algebraic "dot product" (i.e., scalar product). As far as I know, the first documented and accurate demonstration of such a geometric-algebraic interaction/operation was by Caspar Wessel in 1799. Were Silly Rabbit to provide a book reference discussing Lagrange's discovery of the "cross product," then I would gladly read it since his understanding differs from mine. (He or she is welcome to add the reference to my user page, should it prove too much of digression for this page.) --(talk) 01:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete content-free, misnamed, redundant. Forking the article is the wrong resolution to a content dispute and should not be encouraged. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not a FORK. It's a totally legimate, respectable, and separate topic as defined by its references. All fork-based votes here and in the earlier debate ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vector (physical)) should be disqualified on the grounds that their casters demonstrate a lack of understanding about such basic wikipedia criteria as references. References and not an editor's sense of truth (not even that of an MIT professor) are how topics are legitimized or not on wikipedia. --Firefly322 (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Firefly, we all know you disagree. You've said your opinion. You cannot then stand up and demand that all votes that disagree with you be disqualified because they disagree with you. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's stick to the facts. Are editors here saying that they disagree with reliability of the provided references on Vector (Gibbs-Heaviside)? None of its references nor any of its content ever existed on Vector (geometric). A fork would be where actual content is either separated or copied to another article. The Vector (Gibbs-Heaviside) article content and its references are completely new. --Firefly322 (talk) 01:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, Silly Rabbitt, Fropuff, Oleg Alexandrov, and David Eppstein. Michael Kinyon (talk) 08:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Regardless of the notability issues, the page is empty RogueNinjatalk 19:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If this AfD and the earlier one on vector (physical) are being and have been employed as "battle grounds", then dispute resolution should have been used instead. WP:NOT#BATTELGROUND --Firefly322 (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. AfD is the appropriate venue if one of the possible outcomes is the deletion of the article, unless it's thought that the author could be convinced the article should be deleted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or, failing that, merge with History of quaternions. Though I don't particularly like its title, this could become a nice little article on the early history of 3-vectors in physics. Cardamon (talk) 07:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this is not an article, it is an outline of what an article might look like some day. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you take another look? I just hid the outline. It is in fact an article, albeit a small one. Cardamon (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Now that the outline is gone, it should clearly be renamed to "History of vectors" (per above) or merged into Vector (geometric). The existing text does not make the case that there is something called "Gibbs-Heaviside vector" and that this is in any way distinct from spatial vectors, on which there is an article already. silly rabbit (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. "History of vectors" might be a better name, but perhaps it is too broad a title for this article, which is about only some of the strands in the history of vectors. I could see it as a section of a future "History of vectors" article, or as something like "History of 3-vectors". Cardamon (talk) 05:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Now that the outline is gone, it should clearly be renamed to "History of vectors" (per above) or merged into Vector (geometric). The existing text does not make the case that there is something called "Gibbs-Heaviside vector" and that this is in any way distinct from spatial vectors, on which there is an article already. silly rabbit (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- rename to history of vectors.--Salix alba (talk) 11:57, 15 March 2008 (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.