Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derivative (examples)

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 of the debate was no consensus. Blurrrgh. Nothing's going to be solved here - there needs to be some kind of informed and agreed consensus by the maths guys as to what is and is not suitable, which we could then apply. If someone wants to prune it down and merge this into Derivative, I don't think there would be many tears shed. Proto||type 08:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. In particular number 8 titled Instruction manuals which specifically states the following:

while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes.

To which I think it is fair to call this article a tutorial on how to find derivatives. Jersey Devil 02:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article is definitely not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a tutorial or instruction manual. Just like dictionaries have pictures of some words to (literally and figuratively) illustrate what they are, encyclopedias contain examples for reference. In particular, derivatives are a very significant topic, and I beleive this page began as a split from the main page (just as there is Derivative (generalizations), which I think is also an important article). The tone of the article is also quite encyclopedic, and the article really helps to explain how to find a derivative; I understand that WP:NOT includes "how-tos," but this is a math function- it would be like the article for multiplication not explaining how to find a product. -- Kicking222 02:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A few examples in the main article are fine, but this is ridiculous. —Keenan Pepper 02:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I had to mull over this one for a few minutes. If we can't have an article called derivative (examples) does that mean we also shouldn't have examples of groups and examples of vector spaces? I concluded that this article is badly named. I should rather be called derivative (how-to) or some such. No, if you're looking for examples of derivatives, see table of derivatives, a valid article (and so are examples of vector spaces and [..] groups). This article should be transwikied to wikibooks (I think calculus examples are valuable, but we're not a textbook; they are). Perhaps one of the example calculations should be merged into the main derivative article. -lethe ^{talk +} 03:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. I've noticed this kind of disease that makes people think Foo (bar) is the only correct format for article titles, when in most cases it's awkward and a much better title would be Bar of foo or Foo in bar or something. Table of derivatives should stay; Derivative (examples) should go. —Keenan Pepper 04:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Prune back to 2 or 3 short examples, basically to illustrate the definition of derivative, then make this a section of Derivative. No redirect link need remain. --Lambiam^Talk 03:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to Wikibooks, or just delete if they don't need this over there. This is a good example of what WP is WP:NOT, but Wikibooks is. -- Deville (Talk) 12:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The main problem with this article is the level: it uses the difference quotient definition to compute derivatives. There is no good reason to do this for any of the functions given; indeed, the only time anyone actually uses the definition to compute such derivatives during the brief time in a calculus course between the introduction of the derivative, and the introduction of the power rule. Therefore this page is de facto textbook material and should go. The tone of the article reinforces my opinion of this. It would not be enough to replace the calculations with more reasonable methods, since then it would just be lost property of the table of derivatives. I don't think any of the examples is very valuable, nor do I think including one in the main article (note that there is already an example there) really adds anything besides how-to-ness. Ryan Reich 13:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an analyst, I have to disagree that "the only time anyone actually uses the definition to compute such derivatives during the brief time in a calculus course between the introduction of the derivative, and the introduction of the power rule," but I agree that only a few of these should be kept and merged into the main article.  ;) Lunch 23:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge 1 or 2 into derivative and delete. —Ruud 14:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki per Deville Crazynas 06:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into main article, then redirect. Masterpjz9 02:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (or perhaps merge with Table of derivatives). This is a selection of proofs that the derivatives in the table are correct; not a tutorial, for which the formulae in the table are more useful. Septentrionalis 02:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep an excellent addendum for the Derivation article. Unlike some other subjects, one need examples to understand math. -- Heptor _talk 19:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Zaxem 12:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Almanac-like information. If this goes and individual episode summaries of Family Guy stay ... sheesh, do we want to look like cretins? -- GWO

• Keep. Why is this even a discussion? Too many encyclopedants spoil the broth. --Dan|^(talk) 11:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per GWO. (Possibly rename to "Individual Episodes of The Derivatives", which are filmed weekly at a math class near you...)AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep maybe a bit shortened. Current name is fine. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This is remniscent of the debate over whether semi-trivial proofs of theorems are suitable for WP or not. Perhaps this shouldbe considered to be in the same class? Might be worth setting a policy for. The WP "proofs" category is Category:Article proofs, and it contains links to the debate where it last trailed off. linas 01:48, 13 June 2006 (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.