Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smooth coarea formula

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The result was Keep - Nomination withdrawn without delete opinion. (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 07:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smooth coarea formula

Smooth coarea formula (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I'm not sure to do with this one, mainly because I'm not familiar with the content - It reads likes it's an essay or a copy vio, and it doesn't assert notability. It also doesn't explain to people who are not familiar with the context what the article is about. For now I'm Neutral, but if there's any good opposing/keeping arguements, I will change my vote. Thanks, Spawn Man 07:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep unless determined conclusively to be non-notable or something - assuming it was created in good faith, this article needs expansion. To me, it looks like a stub. I don't think we need to delete stubs due to lack of content. Also, I don't think it reads like an essay or copyvio. I think that's just how it winds up sounding because it's a math stub. --Cheeser1 13:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep why delete? seems like a sensible enough claim to me. if folks decide somehow this doesn't deserve its own page, one can always try merge/relocate elsewhere. has the original contributor been notified of this? Mct mht 15:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
He now is. --Victor falk 16:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Mct mht and Spawn man. --Victor falk 16:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The nominator gives no reasons for deletion at all. The article begins by saying "In Riemannian geometry...", with a link to that article, and that sets the context for the lay reader, telling them that mathematics is what it's about. It has as much assertion of notability as is typical in tens of thousands of Wikipedia mathematics articles. I am puzzled about why this was nominated. Michael Hardy 23:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    • See my comment below - Spawn Man 03:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The nominator said "It also doesn't explain to people who are not familiar with the context what the article is about." That problem was fixed by a later edit. Now that that's done, there seems to be no further reason to think about deletion. Should this go to "speedy keep"? Michael Hardy 23:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
This may be premature, but perhaps speedy keep applies per WP:SNOW (based on your reasoning, and the fact that nobody, even the nom, thinks it should be deleted). --Cheeser1 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. See info now on article talk page. (But I shouldn't have had to work that hard.) --KSmrqT 01:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - The reason why I nomianted was because it 1) Read like a copy vio, and 2) Did not assert notability. People seem to be confusing the version as I first saw it ([1]) to the version now, after someone's edited it. So my claims were founded to begin with, but someone's done a good job of writing in some info/context, so I see no reason to delete (I didn't in the first place...). So yeah, I'm not stupid, it's just that someone's edited the article since I'd nominated. Cheers, Spawn Man 03:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep - Article now meets all inclusion criteria since it was nominated. Spawn Man 03:09, 25 September 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.