Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Set descriptions in colloquial English

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 DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Set descriptions in colloquial English

im at a bit of a loss here. its unencyclopedic, but what it is is wierd. BL kiss the lizard 00:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Looks like nonsense to me. Alr 00:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: This is a valid language problem. When the symbolic math characters for "less than" and "less than and equal to" and others are translated into conversational English, the meaning is often ambiguous. The confusing senses of "to" or "through" or "between" are a topic of legitimate discussion.Anthony717 00:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• transwiki or maybe delete. I agree with Anthony that this is a valid topic of discussion, but one best saved for a dictionary. set (disambiguation) links to wiktionary, so anyone who wants to know what it means will get there. If it turns out that there are interesting things to say about the interaction between the colloquial usage and the mathematical usage, I might change my vote. -lethe ^talk 01:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems to be a pet English-usage peeve of the author. --Trovatore 01:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into an article on sets, but I'm not sure where it should go. This is useful information, but doesn't stand as an article on its own. -—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Night Gyr (talk • contribs) .
• Delete. I feel this would make a worthy investigation or report by someone, but is not suitable for inclusion in wikipedia. Evil Eye 02:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic. Paul August ☎ 03:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into an article with a need for this information. I can't find one, though. JHMM13 (T | C) 03:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is just kind of a rant, with discoverability problems. How would anyone find it? Some article might include a section on "colloquial English terms for X", but it doesn't deserve an article. rodii 04:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• From article writer: I admit the idea for the article was a little undeveloped. But I was hoping that other editors would help make something of the idea. In math and science and law, humans are very specific about time and quantity. But in everyday language, we are vague. As to the difference between "to" and "to and including", we are very vague. I can accept the article being deleted. I cannot, however, accept that the Wikipedia model does not provide a way for putting a fine point on vague injustices. Anthony717 06:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - non-encyclopaedic. --Daveb 07:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete but find some article where this discussion may belong.--ThreeAnswers 09:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per rodii's comments. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 09:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as a minor aside/footnote in some appropriate topic. I'm hoping someone less lazy finds a suitable place for it ;) Zunaid 11:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Changing vote per the WP:NOR arguments presented below. Zunaid 07:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I think set or naive set theory would be the best place to merge this article, maybe under a 'Terms' heading, or something like that. --Sam Pointon 13:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (as very unlikely search term) after merging verifiable content to set (mathematics) or somewhere. Tone of the article suggests original research, so the verifiable content may be limited. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 11:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• This topic might be appropriate in an EFL primer, but not in an encyclopedia. Unencyclopedic. Delete -- Karada 13:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopaedic, belongs more to a style guide on mathematical writing. Do not merge with set. If it does need to be merged somewhere, interval (mathematics) or mathematical notation would be better targets. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes do not merge with set (mathematics). Paul August ☎ 14:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and do not merge anywhere. This appears to be a (trivial) piece of original research. - Liberatore(T) 16:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Basically just a rant. Do not merge with any article on any mathematical topic. ManoaChild 21:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This could have been so much more. Denni ☯ 03:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Do not merge into any mathematical topic. May possibly be merged into an English style guide, in another Wiki. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I can't see where this could fit, but mathematical logic or predicate logic, using symbols, will give you a different answer in certain cases to simply using them as word logic. So there is something to say about this. Blnguyen 07:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete do not merge into anything set related. While the topic of ambiguities in colloquial English may be a valid topic, the existence and title of this article is quite misleading. Many mathematicians communicate with each other in colloquial English. Thus, there are many ambiguities that arise. In many areas of mathematics. To highlight this particular one as particularly noteworthy as an issue is misleading. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 02:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, agree with Chan-Ho's remarks above. ←Hob 08:58, 9 January 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.