Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Complex numbers
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: delete . Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Although complex numbers are a major concept in mathematics, we don't actually have many articles about complex numbers themselves, so there isn't much to put in this portal. We do also have Portal:Numbers, which is a better place to cover this given that basically all things called "numbers" are complex numbers. Hut 8.5 19:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - I am not sure that I understand the nominator's statement about things called numbers. Surreal numbers are not complex numbers. Vectors and quaternions are sometimes called numbers, although one could get an argument on them. However, there is no need for a portal with this narrow a scope. They are also a datatype that is very seldom used in FORTRAN (even before the introduction of more generalized datatypes). Robert McClenon (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sure, there are other things called "numbers" but they don't get that much attention. Quaternions for example were very interesting during the nineteenth century but don't get studied as much now. Hut 8.5 11:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. This technically meets the article number requirements but I don't believe it is a broad topic with sufficient reader interest. Mathematical topics in general are difficult in portals because they do not always lend themselves to attractive images that are understandable outside their context. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete as a poor choice of topic Legacypac (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Not a terrible choice for a topic, but a terrible implementation. Not mentioning holomorphic functions (or any of the other reasons why people study use complex numbers) is inexcusable. —Kusma (t·c) 14:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I think Portal:Complex analysis would be better. We do have Portal:Analysis but that portal seems rather confused about what kind of analysis it's talking about. Hut 8.5 14:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, that is a better scope. —Kusma (t·c) 16:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.