RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Vector

Vector | Result: Deleted

Vector (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. encyclopedia page completely off mission ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

   I would kind of like more discussion. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

2. The page is puzzling and the author hasn't made much of a reason to have a page. We need seriously contextualization for jargon-heavy garble like "object V that is a set over a field", "A vector space can be a set over a ring", and "A subspace is nonempty, contains the zero vector, and is closed under vector addition and scalar multiplication." --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
3. I have a pretty broad personal definition of what sorts of pages contribute to the site's mission. This page does not contribute to the site's mission. DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 21:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
4. Just a page for an abstract vector enthusiast to guff on about eir pet subject. Avida Dollars^{her again} 11:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
5. I really don't see what the point is of having it here. It's not a subject which has any real controversy, or any political or theological importance beyond its use as a mathematical tool. The article is neither entertaining nor useful for the layperson. It's aimed firmly at those experienced with mathematics, although they presumably already know what a vector is. I'm pretty inclusionist, and if vectors were even very tangentially missional, I'd say keep and rewrite, but with all due respect for the effort involved, RW shouldn't have a drily factual, jargon-packed article on every topic from every academic discipline: that's what Wikipedia is for. --Annanoon (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Keep

1. As I noted before, it is supportive of missional pages, and such supportive pages have been considered missional. I am not against modification. Bongolian (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

   Kinda a dead discussion. I don't know how the article, as is, can support literally any other page. There's not a single page on the wiki I can imagine linking here, and leading to a user getting something they didn't before. I can see it on wikipedia, but the page sucks entirely with no redeeming value right now. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

   Visit the original talk page on the vector page. I make a list of articles that this page supports. Zackarycw (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

   Why not use those articles this page supports as a means of contextualization then? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

2. Expressions like $w_{1},w_{2}\in W$ are obviously witchcraft, and therefore missional. No word made for mere humans to speak could have that many W's. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 20:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

   Yes, I too love to describe my spacial orientations in abstract, continuous sets. This is important to me. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

   We call that "Waluigi". --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Goat

If you do an advanced search, it shows that there are at least half a dozen pages here that use the term 'vector' that could be linked to this article, but currently are not. It's an okay article, but the crappy last section referencing Alex Jonezzz really drags it down. Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)