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 Merge to Existence of God. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 09:43Z

Mathematics and God (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The article has no references and barely and content. Has been nominated twice before, but no consensus could be reached. Seems to be entirely original resource and a little bit biased as well. Ganfon 16:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is like a disamiguation page but its content is very controversial. I think this sort of stuff is outside the scope of wikipedia and the author should put this sort of content to religious organisations for debate. --PrincessBrat 16:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't think it's a dab, nor controversial (the arguments listed have all been made), but it is redundant, as the content is covered in Existence of God and available in Category:Arguments for the existence of God. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 17:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this discussion has been listed as a subpage of the AfD above, not as a page in its own right - I don't know how to fix it. Does anyone know how to list it properly? thanks. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 17:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Existence of God. I wouldn't call the content controversial, but it reads like WP:OR and is currently unsourced. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Maybe redirect to Numerology?--Djrobgordon 18:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This AfD was originally created as a subpage of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eathan Keyboards, the content has now been copied over to here. -SpuriousQ (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment For the history of this article, see the first AfD and the second AfD. Following the second, some editors pruned the article from essentially a list of quotations of mathematicians about God to a list of mathematical arguments about the existence of God. They then proposed that the article be renamed to Mathematical proofs of the existence of God or merged to Existence of God, but this never occurred. However, all the content seems to already be in Existence of God, albeit scattered over there instead of in a section focused on mathematical arguments. -SpuriousQ (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Merge anything useful that might be in it to Existence of God. -FunnyMan 19:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've referenced and expanded the article to contain more context than Existence of God currently has on the subject. In case it anyone feels it's appropriate, please link the article from there to expand information on briefly discussed connections. Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into existence of God or delete. I don't see the point in making this a separate article. —David Eppstein 07:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please explain which criteria of the deletion policy do you believe this meets? This is a well-researched subject with a lot of available information: [1][2]. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is why I'd prefer to merge the content. But once the content is merged into the more appropriate article, I don't care whether this title remains, so I'm ok with a delete outcome as well. But if you want an actual argument for deletion: "Mathematics and God" as a title seems to presuppose the existence and uniqueness of God (else it would be something longer like "Mathematics and Gods" or "Mathematics and Religion" or "Mathematics and the Christian God" or "Mathematical arguments for the existence of God"); that presupposition is a violation of WP:NPOV. —David Eppstein 16:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well-researched topic deserves a separate article, although a few lines on this in Existence of God might be useful. As for the rename, I will move the article to "Mathematics and Religion" once this AfD is closed according to the first source, which doesn't necessarily discuss the Christian God. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this article doesn't even have anything to do to with mathematics. The statement "it's better to believe in god than to not believe in god" has no basis in mathematics at all. What if the god you believe in isn't the right one? There are over 9000 religions in this world, all claiming the rest are wrong and damned by the one "true" god. If a god does exist, then you only have a one in 9000 chance of getting it right! Now thats mathematics! This article is biased and only represents one side of the debate. --Candy-Panda 08:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've removed that statement as irrelevant. Disagreement with a certain part of the article isn't a valid reason for deletion. Michaelas10 (Talk) 10:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Existence of God as proposed above. It would fit there well and I do not see reasons for an article with such a POV-loaded title and not very consistent content.--Ioannes Pragensis 15:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Existence of God. I'm surprised it didn't contain the account of the alleged debate between Euler and Diderot, in which Euler confidently opened: "Sir, (a + bⁿ) / n = x, therefore God exists: answer!" - Smerdis of Tlön 16:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Michaelas10. Mathmo ^Talk 05:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete The first two afds were for a longer article [3] which talked about the what mathematicians thought about god, or some such, but was pretty un-encyclopedic (it was a collection of half-quotes). The length an breadth of that article was a big part of the reason people "voted" keep (I say voted because they mostly left the discussion afterwards). This material fit better at Relationship between religion and science and elsewhere, and was removed in January per talk page. What is left has little to do with its title, and anything that isn't at Existence of God can be put there in two seconds. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a subject may be expanded with further encyclopedic information, it should be kept. Solely having a stub isn't a valid reason for deletion nor merge. Michaelas10 (Talk) 14:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Umm, ok. But I'm saying it was expanded, and then the consensus was to deflate, because the material belonged elsewhere. What is left shouldn't be kept. If you think you can write an encyclopedic expansion go ahead. If the article is deleted before you get a chance, you might write it in your user space. But this isn't encyclopedic, and the direction the article is going now isn't helping. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge to Existence of God. If expanded (which it appears hasn't happened thus far), this could be a good article in its own right. As a student, I found the idea scientists/mathematicians had historically diverted their attentions to religion and God interesting. An accurate historical account is encyclopedic. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 12:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge. This article doesn't have enough legs to stand on its own and almost all of its unsourced. Chevinki 08:53, 9 March 2007 (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.