Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graphical methods of finding polynomial roots: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:02, 7 September 2009

Graphical methods of finding polynomial roots

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Unsourced original research. Contested prod. A previous version of the article contained the sentence "Plotting the imaginary roots using empty circle in the Cartesian coordinate system is something new I am proposing" so was obviously OR. This sentence has been removed by subsequent edits, but contents of article have not been substantially changed and no sources have been provided to demonstrate it is not OR. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that during this discussion the article was moved to Graphical methods of finding polynomial roots. Title, topic and contents are now completely different from the nominated version. The original (and still unsourced) contents of the article were moved to its talk page and so effectively removed from Wikipedia article space. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have active discussions on the article's talk page by interested editors. The nomination seems to be forum shopping and/or forcing the issue in a disruptive way. There is no need for a 7-day deadline and so, per WP:BEFORE, ordinary methods of editing should be tried first. Note that I have provided multiple good sources which touch on this matter. The nominator disputes them but so it goes ... Colonel Warden (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Escalating to AfD when a prod tag is removed (and removed by you, let us note) is standard practice so I invite you to withdraw your unfounded accusations of forum shopping and disruption. I still see no sources that describe this specific method of visually finding complex roots of a quadratic equation. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is hardly OR. LOL! Mathematicians have known about exactly this aspect of analytic geometry for quite a while now. To say that they haven't would mean the author of this article deserves a Fields medal (assuming they are under 40 years of age, of course, which he/she probably is). --Firefly322 (talk) 12:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NOR: "To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented". I see no such sources.Gandalf61 (talk) 13:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loads of potential sources (1) The American mathematical monthly, (2) ON-Math Spring 2003 | Volume 1, Number 3 "Connecting Complex Roots to a Parabola's Graph", (3) "Roots of Quadratic Equations from Parabola graph". Since this is a mere cursory look, hardly involving the digging that an expert could perform, the potential sources and possibility of article expansion here seem quite vast. An argument that there is a lack of sources doesn't hold up, falls foul of WP:BEFORE. --Firefly322 (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In fact WP:BEFORE reads "When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist." I see ZERO effort on the part of the nominator to have been made. --Firefly322 (talk) 21:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it is original research that doesn't cite any reliable sources. It seems like good material, but that isn't a sufficient excuse for having the article. Independent reliable sources would need to be found. Recommend the material is userfied until then. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's trivial to find maths articles which have no sources - see Disjoint union for example. It is clearly not our policy to delete them as a matter of course. See our actual policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah, WP:OTHERSTUFF. Let's stick to the point. You (or any other editor) can preserve this article very simply - you just have to "cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented". I still see no such sources. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is a good argument when the precedents are valid - please read it. Your appeal to it is therefore a WP:VAGUEWAVE. As for sources, I've already made a good start and this fork in the discussion isn't helping as we are now diverted by tiresome AFD rhetoric rather than getting at the facts of the matter. Do you actually dispute the correctness of this mathematical method? I just took another quick look and soon found this paper which seems to apply the same idea to quintics. The topic is clearly not original and our task seems how best to present it rather than punishing a naive editor for his impudence contrary to WP:BITE. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plush Toys.JPG

Newcomers' ears can be particularly sensitive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.86.149.38 (talk) who also edits as User:TeamQuaternion 22:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The method is correct, but that is irrelevant. Unless it has been described in a reliable source it does not belong in Wikipedia - our benchmark is verifiability, not truth. A paper on finding real roots of quintics is not related to an article on finding complex roots of quadratics. I still see no sources. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- pablo_hablo. 15:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR due to lack of WP:RS, which also means it fails notability requirements. Open to userfication per above. Verbal chat 16:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again if this is OR, then its original editor deserves a Fields medal. If one doesn't believe this editor deserves a Fields medal, then one must logically conclude that this OR-argument is false. --Firefly322 (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FireFly, please stick to wikipedia reasons. Provie RS or stop going on about the Fields medal. If someone has won such an award for this, then provide the RS. I realise you've had problems understanding our guidelines in the past, but you've been here long enough now to know that these sorts of arguments aren't valid. Verbal chat 21:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's a "how to". Abductive (reasoning) 16:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are seven points in WP:NOTHOWTO none of which mention mathematics articles. This is a specious argument that also falls foul of WP:BITE. Just as the argument labeling it WP:OR does. --Firefly322 (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See point 4 and 6, for starters. The reference to "bite" is unsupportable. Verbal chat 21:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Point 4 clearly wasn't written with math articles in mind. Using it here seriously distorts any semblance of right or wrong on wikipedia. Nearly all mathematics articles seem to violate point 4. But clearly math articles are wanted. As for point 6, how in the world does that apply? I don't see any relevance to this AFD debate. And WP:BITE does indeed apply. --Firefly322 (talk) 03:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not all math articles need be guides on how to perform certain mathematical operations, and even if many of them do, WP:WAX is not a good argument. Point 4 seems to clearly apply to this: as currently written, it is just like a textbook, and should therefore be put on wikibooks. I believe that the topic itself could be treated encyclopedically, but I think it would require major work to make it that way. — DroEsperanto (talk) 07:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Delete~~ ~~Unsourced~~ how-to. I don't see how the topic could be made into something suitable for Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep. Article has been effectively deleted and a new one made in its place. Still has how-to problems. Should be stubbed if nothing but the lede can be sourced. --Ronz (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Scjessey, and Verbal. Ozob (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When there are those here who claim to have Ph.D.'s in Math, but their comments don't really hold up to such a claim, using them to bolster arguments via per is naive at best. See Essjay controversy. --Firefly322 (talk) 03:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't resort to personal attacks, which have seen you blocked for very long periods quite recently. Verbal chat 18:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't threaten me with a past in which I called a spade a spade ([Orangemarlin stopped because he was about to get wiki-sensored or banned]). The fact that you continue to go to great lengths to defend an editor capable of such junk is not a good indicator of your judgement then or now. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep The basis of this nomination seems dubious at best. previous version of the article contained the sentence.... What a previous version of the article contained seems to be completely irrelevant. In fact I went and looked at the list of arguments not to use in a deletion discussion and was wondering if maybe I could find something along those lines already listed. I didn't find it, but maybe we should consider adding it. Finding the roots of a parabola is certainly a notable topic. I can pull books off my shelf that discuss the topic. The method is certainly verifiable, in the discussion on the discussion page, I pointed to at least one discussion of imaginary intersections, in Hamilton's Elements of Quaternions article 214, with the only problem being that this particular article discusses the imaginary intersections of lines and circles. A little digging would probably turn up parabolas as well, but if not found in that particular text, it seems pretty obvious that this topic has been discussed some place before.TeamQuaternion (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of argument LOL, lets say that the current method being presented is original, and has never been proposed before. That is not really relevant, because if there exists any notable published graphical method for finding imaginary roots of a parabola then the article could be fixed by substituting that method, for the current method. Suppose that Gandalf61 could prove not only that this method is original, which I doubt, but also that no method of graphically finding the imaginary roots a parabola has ever been found up until the present article under discussion. If this were the case he could certainly find reliable sources stating this to be the case. If he wants to claim that this is indeed the case, I challenge him to find documentation for this remarkable fact. Yet that would still not be grounds for deleting the article as its contents should then read that there is no known graphical method for finding the roots of a parabola, citing the sources that Gandalf61 has provided. Of course if this were the case, this wonderful new method will soon be published in reliable sources, and we can then once again include it as well.TeamQuaternion (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about this? The method only works for the parabola given. Try 0.75(x – 7)² + 5; the "visual method" gives about 7 ± 2.235i, but the actual roots are closer to 7 ± 2.582i. The problem is the choice of nothing but powers of two in the example in the article; 0.5(x – 4)² + 2. Can any mathematicians check my work? I think I'm right. Abductive (reasoning) 07:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken. The "visual method" gives the correct answer. It doesn't give anything like 2.235 as the imaginary part. Certainly the proposed method is correct; that's easy to see. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But this visual method is essentially useless for anything other than the rare cases where the intercepts are integers, since one can't accurately read answers with square roots as terms. It's still original research and How To and against the rules. It should be on wikiHow.com. Abductive (reasoning) 05:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have problems with the visual method, Abductive, put the image up for deletion, you don't delete an article because of the image in the article, wouldn't you agree? The image can be easily removed. Just like sources could have easily be found by the nominator, in which he neglected to do, in violation of WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE Ikip (talk) 09:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Ikip: If it is so easy to find sources for the original article, then it is strange that the original article material remained completely unsourced right up to the point when you removed it all from the article. I see nothing in WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE that requires a nominator to entirely rewrite an article, changing both its topic and its contents to fit an arbitrary list of available sources, as has been done here. Your ad hominen attacks on myself and other editors simply reveal the lack of substantive arguments for retaining any of the original material. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the award for biggest personal attack goes to.....Hfran.[1] When I asked him to remove these personal attacks, he deleted my response.[2] Asking an editor to follow WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE is not a personal attack.

Ummm. Grandlf61. There are 20 references now to the article. No amount of accusations against me change this. No amount of accusation against me change the fact that the original reason you wanted this deleted was, and I quote, "Unsourced original research." Sources are provided, substantive arguments are addressed, and now the reason for deletion changes by most those editors who want to delete. Ikip (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Ikip:... and not a single one of those references is about the very specific visual method of finding complex roots of a quadratic equation that was described in the original article. Not one. None. The text of the original article (i.e. the text that you removed to the talk page and that Spinningspark is now attempting to restore to the new article) is still completely unsourced. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Everyone can see that it's a clumsily written article, neglecting WP:MOSMATH at every opportunity (not to mention all the incorrectly capitalized initial letters in the article's title). But as I also pointed out on its talk page, the graphs are grossly incorrectly drawn in a way that causes secondary-school pupils to lose points. That doesn't encourage me to sympathize with its author very much, even if the remedy would be to clean it up rather than to delete it. But now to the content of the main point: that content is worth maybe a couple of paragraphs if an article is to be made of it. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It looks like WP:OR, and appears to violate WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. One of the two supposed potential sources presented on the talk page does not verify the content of the article (indeed, it is about Cardano's solution of the cublic equation, which is a different though related matter). I cannot access the other suggested source, so I will not comment, but the editor who presented it also failed to indicate any details, merely stating that it is "another interesting angle". Verifiable material would, in any event, most likely be better covered in an article on quadratic equations since it seems very unlikely that a single method of visual would rise to the level of notability that a dedicated article must surely demand. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge some fraction into completing the square. It is kind of worth a graphic illustration there. Otherwise, frankly, it seems to be the sort of mathematics you leave for people to discover for themselves. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested input from WikiProject Mathematics for this discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (part) into completing the square#Complex roots. If there is anything worthwhile, it should be there. The article title is a misnomer, but understandable; however, even if the method could be sourced, it belongs in completing the square. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a ridiculous suggestion - completing the square is not a graphical method, it is an analytic method, how can that be suitable target for a merge? Completing the square is relevant only to quadratics, how can that be a suitable target for an article about solutions to polynomials? Completing the square is only one method, how can that become an article about multiple methods? SpinningSpark 15:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to some Wikibook module, per my comments above. — DroEsperanto (talk) 07:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have developed the article to improve its structure. Numerous sources have been added including Graphical Solutions for Complex Roots of Quadratics, Cubics and Quartics (National Mathematics Magazine 17 (4): 147-150) and Graphing the Complex Roots of a Quadratic Equation (The College Mathematics Journal 16 (4): 257-261). These demonstrate the notability of the topic and rebut the complaints that sources are lacking. The only issue remaining is that the article might be a how-to but this is a stylistic issue rather than a reason to delete. To see how we present such matters generally, please see our category: Root-finding algorithms which contains numerous articles of a similar nature. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- These changes have not made the article any better and it's still a clear delete candidate. Verbal chat 08:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Straw man, Colonel Warden. You have added a series of content-free one sentence sections as a coatrack for sources that are not related to the original material. No one has claimed that general graphical methods of finding roots of polynomial equations were not notable or could not be sourced. However, the original material, on a specific visual method of finding complex roots of a quadratic equation (which does not generalise to higher order polynomials) is still completely unsourced and should be deleted from Wikipedia. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:MATH, Most mathematical ideas are amenable to some form of generalization, and this seems the best way to go as I said at the outset. See our general editing policy, "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts. Another may help standardize the article's formatting, or have additional facts and figures or a graphic to add. Yet another may bring better balance to the views represented in the article, and perform fact-checking and sourcing to existing content.". Colonel Warden (talk) 09:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOTMANUAL, and specifically not a compendium of unsourced (even if mathematically valid) material on how to solve mathematical equations. That is the function of a maths textbook not an encyclopaedia. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 09:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: as of this latest version, the vast bulk of the article (being the 'Quadratic equations' section, from the second sentence onward) is unsourced, and can thus reasonably be described as WP:OR. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 09:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I understand if you would have made the claim that this article is unsourced 3 days ago, as many editors above did. But 35 minutes before you stated this page was unsourced (9:01), editors had finished adding 20 sources. There seems to be a real disconnect there. I would suggest striking this unsourced comment. Ikip (talk) 09:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The text you mention Hrafn has now been removed from the page. So every section is now sourced. Nullifying 7 editors arguments here of OR and unsourced. Ikip (talk) 10:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revised basis for opinion: the article as of this latest version contains no substantive content. It amounts to little more to a slight and trivial elaboration on the statement that 'you can solve polynomials graphically'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 10:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. No matter what happens to this article, you and other editors will always, always support deletion.[3] Where is the compromise, the give take, the ability to say, you know what good job editor, you really made that article get turned around. Nope. Ikip (talk) 10:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly keep your inane laughter to yourself. This article had no substantive, sourced content -- only a bunch of unsourced/WP:OR WP:HOWTO and a small amount of repeating the blindingly obious. After removal of the OR & the reptition, there is nothing substantive to keep, so little point in a "compromise" to preserve a non-informative stub. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 10:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep exhaustively researched now (as of 6 September), making the nominators original "original research" arguments of nominator, User:Sławomir Biały, User talk:Ronz, User:Ozob, User talk:Verbal, User:Scjessey irrelevant. I have no idea why Hrafn wrote that it was unsourced though. This is how it will work now >> these same editors will come back and say the sources are not good enough, ignoring that their original justification for delete is now invalid. I agree with Colonel's arguments about sources above. Ikip (talk) 09:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exhaustively researched? You either tire easily, or missed out the fact that his research has failed to add references that support the content or the notability of the article, per nom and Hrafn. Verbal chat 10:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verbal's original argument: "Delete WP:OR due to lack of WP:RS, which also means it fails notability requirements." Verbal's arguments now: "his research has failed to add references that support the content or the notability of the article" Now we go into the inadequate reference phase, editors will name a reference, and the editors here can claim it is trivial or irrelevant. Ikip (talk) 10:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing nominator since the nomination, this article has gone though extensive improvements, with an astounding 20 footnotes added.[4] Ikip (talk) 09:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further note These "improvements" are merely superficial and coatrack additions that do not serve to show notability or support the text. Verbal chat 10:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - "This is how it will work now >> these same editors will come back and say the sources are not good enough, ignoring that their original justification for delete is now invalid." Did I predict folks, did I predict it! Nevermind that verbal's original AFD argument is invalid now.Ikip (talk) 10:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - My reasons haven't changed: wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the good of the project. Pleas stop your personal attacks on other editors. Hfran has it right above. Verbal chat 10:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Another editor you regularly work with was nice enough to write me. Is this reversion okay? I am willing to work with you Verbal, to compromise with you. Ikip (talk) 11:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think there's no reason to delete this article after it has been repurposed as Graphical methods of finding polynomial roots. There are enough sources for that topic, as evidenced by the 20 citations, and the quadratic equation is just a particular case. Sure, the quadratic section needs to be cleared of (potential) WP:OR by comparing, and potentially replacing its contents with what the sources say, but there's no reason to discard the contents that has been added to the article after this deletion nomination has been made. This new contents meets WP:V and WP:GNG. Pcap ping 12:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I see that the unreferenced section has been removed now. Pcap ping 12:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update. Delete link after article move, as the old name has nothing to do with, and no content in common with, the new article. Delete or Userfy new article anyway, as the only content is 3 unrelated well-sourced sentences, but still not related to the topic of the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Trout for the person who renamed it, breaking links to the AfD from the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That was verbal, he deleted several paragraphs,[5] and then argued that it be deleted because it is an "appalling stub".[6] Ikip (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Could you please provide a diff to where this supposed deletion took place? These highly misleading comments are becoming disruptive. Please stop or I will take this further, which could result in a block or ban from AfD. What I see there is several identical sentences, except for one word. I removed the duplication. It could be argued that the repeated one sentence sections were a misleading attempt to make the article look like it had some actual content. It became an appalling stub as soon as you removed all the WP:OR. Verbal chat 15:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Also, I didn't do the rename. Please strike. I also find your changes to comments, after they have been replied to, a misleading altering of the record. Please strike and then rephrase, do not hide the problem edits (usually). Verbal chat 15:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to restore the original article. It is ridiculous that the article has been stubbed in the middle of a deletion debate on the grounds that it is unsourced. Either the article is unsourcable and will be deleted at the end of the debate, or it is sourcable, in which case the text should be left in place while the sources are found. Besides, I suspect that the stub is innaccurate, or at least misleading while there does not appear to be anything actually wrong with the article. SpinningSpark 16:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I undid this, as you can restore the material with sources as you find the sources. Otherwise it is silly to add unsourced WP:OR to an article during an AfD, unless you want it deleted! Verbal chat 17:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced has never, by itself, been a reason to delete. You are removing the very article this debate is discussing. The worthless stub you have left behind certainly deserves to be deleted, sourced or not. SpinningSpark 17:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. I don't think anyone has made the claim here that the article should be deleted merely because it is not sourced, and I agree that that once the unsupportable OR is removed what is left certainly deserves deletion. Perhaps you should change your !vote to reflect your new view? Verbal chat 17:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't tell me what to do, I have said what I think and sarcasm won't change my mind. What I was going to do was to actually work on the article, but there is no fucking point if you are going to keep deleting it unless it is perfect. If you want to complain about my incivility you will now have to come to my talkpage as I am now unwatching both the article and this debate. SpinningSpark 18:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This is almost a self evidently notable method. I am pretty certain that quality sources will not be hard to find. The argument that this is a "how-to" also holds little weight for me, mathematics articles commonly include at least simple examples for clarification. Such articles include the alternative methods of completing the square and quadratic equation both include either analytic or graphical examples, as does the parent article polynomial. SpinningSpark 16:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. As per others and WP:BEFORE. Biofase ^flame| stalk 18:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article has been completely remade now, but only Verbal's version [7] is appropriate. The other version still has How To and OR. Abductive (reasoning) 18:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Abductive; this is a total rewrite, and promising - that version should be kept; I hope it will continue, since the new article is far from complete, and I am curious how it will treat quartics with a single real extremum. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh......... Keep, but it's strange to see nothing of the article's original topic in the revised and moved version. The original one belabored elementary points to an excruciating degree and contained simple mathematical errors, but it still had a valid point, even if it wasn't clear that it was worth a Wikipedia article. But it was worth at least being stated briefly somewhere in some Wikipedia article. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Now I have reinstated the original topic within the context of the new article. It fits neatly. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are tactics like these even legal? I mean changing the topic of the discussion of an ADF this drastically? I feel bewildered. I am assuming good faith here, but I find this development really shocking and unexpected.TeamQuaternion (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I have reinstated the original topic within the context of the new article. It fits neatly. Next, we need some concrete examples from the cited book, Visual Complex Analysis. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article at its current state. The pruning and new diagram by Michael Hardy have given a very good result which conveys the point of the original in a comprehensible (and correct) manner. Johnuniq (talk) 01:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yowza! Above we have everything from an f-bombs to a photograph... To be totally honest, this discussion is difficult enough that were I an admin, I could not imagine closing as anything but "no consensus"; however, editors are making active good faith efforts at improvement and by and large we should give them further opportunity to do so beyond the week long AfD. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 :'''Comment''' When there are those here who claim to have Ph.D.'s in Math, but their comments don't really hold up to such a claim, using them to bolster arguments via per is naive at best. See [[Essjay controversy]]. --[[User:Firefly322|Firefly322]] ([[User talk:Firefly322|talk]]) 03:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 :: Please don't resort to personal attacks, which have seen you blocked for very long periods quite recently. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Verbal|<b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b>]] <small>[[User talk:Verbal#top|<span style="color:Gray;">chat</span>]]</small></span> 18:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
+::: Please don't threaten me with a past in which I called a spade a spade ([[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin Orangemarlin stopped because he was about to get wiki-sensored or banned]]). The fact that you continue to go to great lengths to defend an editor capable of such junk is not a good indicator of your judgement then or now. --[[User:Firefly322|Firefly322]] ([[User talk:Firefly322|talk]]) 17:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 *'''keep'''  The basis of this nomination seems dubious at best.  '''previous version of the article contained the sentence...'''.  What a previous version of the article contained seems to be completely irrelevant.  In fact I went and looked at the list of arguments not to use in a deletion discussion and was wondering if maybe I could find something along those lines already listed.  I didn't find it, but maybe we should consider adding it.  Finding the roots of a parabola is certainly a notable topic.  I can pull books off my shelf that discuss the topic.  The method is certainly verifiable, in the discussion on the discussion page, I pointed to at least one discussion of imaginary intersections, in Hamilton's Elements of Quaternions article 214, with the only problem being that this particular article discusses the imaginary intersections of lines and circles.  A little digging would probably turn up parabolas as well, but if not found in that particular text, it seems pretty obvious that this topic has been discussed some place before.[[User:TeamQuaternion|TeamQuaternion]] ([[User talk:TeamQuaternion|talk]]) 05:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)