Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order 3 groups are cyclic proof

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a collection of mathematical proofs (per WP:MSM). The theorem is true for any prime number (not just 3) and represents a very "simple" fact that is already covered by the cyclic group page. grubber 05:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Devoting an article to proving that all groups of prime order are cyclic would be dubious, but devoting an article to the particular case of groups of order 3 is just silly. --Zundark 07:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proof that works for all primes is a two-liner, so an article for even that is not necessary! (By Cauchy's Theorem, there is no non-trivial subgroup; pick any non-identity element, and it generates the whole group. Therefore the group is cyclic.) - grubber 15:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or transwiki to some mathematics wiki. JIP | Talk 09:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to cyclic group, is there a maths wiki at wikia?, if so Transwiki it as well. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 12:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I was the one who prod'ded it at first, thinking it was WP:OR. I obviously don't know much about math, so I Abstain from this particular discussion. However, I do think that WP:MSM would apply, unless the proof is contained within some longer article that would explain to us mere mortals what it's supposed to mean. ... discospinster _talk 13:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Zundark. It is indeed just silly. Michael Kinyon 18:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete silly indeed; not a useful redirect. Melchoir 00:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete silly —Mets501 (talk) 00:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not WP:OR, but too trivial and specialized to be notable. The right generalization is that every group with prime order is cyclic, but that is already mentioned in appropriate detail in Cyclic group and follows immediately from the second sentence of the Definitions section there. The title of the entry doesn't seem notable enough to redirect. —David Eppstein 01:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Charles Matthews 10:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't it qualifies as OR as you can probably find a number of textbooks that have this argument. But it's such a simple fact that it certainly does not need its own page. This might be suitable for, say, some WikiBooks project on elementary group theory (Group Theory for Dummies maybe?). Pascal.Tesson 17:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. RandomP 18:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - too trivial to keep. Madmath789 07:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --- We don't need a long page proving that 1 + 1 = 2 unless it makes some profound non-obvious point along the way. (If for some bizarre reason this is kept, the title should be changed to "proof that order-3 groups are cyclic" or something like that (with the hyphen).) Michael Hardy 02:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- I can't think why anyone bothered to type out the page in the first place Bernard Hurley 14:54, 25 September 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.