Wiki143:Articles for deletion/Proof techniques

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The result of the debate was speedy redirect to Mathematical proof - nomination withdrawn. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Proof techniques

Originally PRODed by KSmrq with the following reason: "This article is poorly conceived, poorly written, and useful content (if any) is better done elsewhere, as the talk page documents. Has had a fixit tag for over a year." However, we can't delete an article because it's poorly written. I'm bringing it to AFD: keep and cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC) After reading these comments, I agree with redirect to Mathematical proof. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. AFD is not cleanup, this needs a cleanup tag, not a PROD/AFD tag. --Coredesat talk 04:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Mathematical proof, which is the same, but better. Forget about the last sentence of the prod and read the rest. The article doesn't need cleanup; it needs to go away. Melchoir 05:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to mathematical proof. As KSmrq said, the article has no useful content. This seems a good reason for deletion to me: cleaning it up would not resolve this, but it would leave us with an empty article. Replacing it with a redirect would solve the problem. I'm not sure the redirect is useful though, so deletion is fine too. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC) )written simultaneously with Melchoir, hence the repetition)
• Redirect it's not so much that there is no room for such an article. But this one is so poor (especially compared to the Mathematical proof one) that it should disappear it its current format. Eventually, this could be spun off the main article. Pascal.Tesson 05:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Mathematical proof without prejudice to later creation of a better article by this name. --Lambiam^Talk 08:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Melchoir. --DaveG12345 08:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Mathematical proof. Disregard my previous remark since I somehow missed the "contested prod" part earlier. --Coredesat talk 10:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to Mathematical proof. At a later time, a reasonable article with this title could be carved out of there, but this isn't it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

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.