Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Analytic

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Analytic

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Analytic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This disambiguation page (or disambiguation-like page) does not disambiguate "analytic", i.e. it does not list articles that might otherwise be titled "Analytic". It is full of WP:Partial title matches and is, at best, an incomplete list of how the general-purpose adjective "analytic" might be used. An alternative to deletion might be a soft redirect to wikt, since it seems to meet the criteria at {{Wiktionary redirect}}. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:DISAMBIGUATION. While I agree with the nominator that not all of the articles currently in this navigational page belong there, it's clear that there is some need for navigational assistance. What and how that should look like should really be a matter of community discussion outside of an AFD. Might I suggest starting a discussion on the talk page and then working to modify the list appropriately. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I actually think most of the entries are fine. Useful dab page. Ovinus (talk) 22:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Analytic function and Analytic set certainly belong. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Science, Mathematics, and Social science. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Move over the existing redirect at AnalyticityAnalyticity (which redirects back here) per WP:TITLE#Use nouns, then create a new redirect from Analytic -> Analyticity as an {{R from adjective}} and {{R from ambiguous term}}, and finally remove all but the two or three entries that actually discuss this as a mathematical idea, probably function and set at least, as LaundryPizza mentioned. Maybe an argument could be made for another few entries here and there, but most are just PTMs. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep at existing name as a valid dab. In particular the mathematical senses of saying that a function is analytic and that a set is analytic are both standard meanings of the bare word "analytic" that require disambiguation from each other and from other meanings of the word. Both of the linked articles use "analytic" as a bare word, rather than as part of an indivisible set phrase. The move proposal above does not work because "analyticity" is much more uncommon in those contexts, to the point where I would be hard pressed to guess the noun form without seeing it here (analyticness? analyticality?) and WP:COMMONNAME trumps grammar pedantry, especially for dabs. Probably this could use cleanup to trim the entries where "analytic" cannot be used by itself, and is therefore not ambiguous in its usage, but WP:DINC. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Ambiguous term with several encyclopedic meanings that have coverage on Wikipedia. Resolving such ambiguity is precisely what dab pages are for (they're not constrained to listing articles whose titles happen to include the dab term in a particular format: see the introductory part of WP:DAB as well as for example MOS:DABSYN or WP:DABMENTION). Yes, it looks like the dab page could do with some trimming, but that's a different matter. – Uanfala (talk) 07:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems like it's useful as a dab. desmay (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2022 (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.