Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:0.999.../Arguments

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Although talk subpages are generally disfavored, editors below suggests this case merits an exception, considering the common interest this topic. Given its utility to the editors of the page in maintaining their encyclopedic work, as the consensus below demonstrates, any rule standing in the way of its existence should rightly be ignored in this case. Xoloz 18:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:0.999.../Arguments

Page violates WP:TALK, has nothing to do with the editing of the article but is just a place where editors meet to discuss mathematical questions. Useless subpage, any relevant information can be posted at the main talk page for the article, not this subsection. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 07:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, the discussion that appears on the page is pretty close to useless. But if it weren't there, it'd be somewhere else, where it would be even more annoying. --Trovatore 07:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If these kinds of posts return to the main talk page, remove them and tell the editors posting them that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Page violates WP:TALK. --Core desat 08:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; "better here than there" is a bad idea in the encyclopedia itself, but can make sense in talk pages, especially if the debate gets too heated. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Arguments for a similar discussion over an arguments subpage I created in early 2006. It's since been archived, but I think that while it lasted it did help reduce the temperature on the main discussion page. *** Crotalus *** 09:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment er, the comments clearly aren't what wikipedia is intended for. So....why are we allowing it? It'd be one thing if it were just tangentially related, but we're talking "welcome to wikipedia math homework helpline". That's beyond BHTT and into WP:NOT. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 09:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you seen Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Mathematics lately? :) Pan Dan 12:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. It's a subpage of [Talk:0.999...]], used to hold things which might (incorrectly) seem to belong there. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is featured, and you'd be surprised how much interest it generates. Anything relevant to the topic, even if not to editing the article, is fair game. Placeholder account 14:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Regardless of the facts of the matter, many people honestly believe that 0.999... is not equal to 1. Either you can allow them to talk about it on a talk page, or you can blank that sort of discussion and they'll just change the article instead. When we change it back we'd be in the humorous position of saying 'You're wrong, but if the article doesn't convince you we can't talk it further.' With that in mind, I think it's just a choice of allowing the arguments to get mixed up with editing discussions or not; I know which I think is preferable. The Sculler 15:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-editorial discussion on talk pages can be deleted; moving it to another talk page just muddies their intended purpose. Questions and challenges can be referred to an external math forum or Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Mathematics.--Trystan 15:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - helps facilitate the WMF's goals by encouraging the free acquisition of understanding. While a reference desk probably shouldn't be the general purpose of talk pages, an anomoly here can't hurt. This is weak logic, hence the weak keep. Also draws WP:NOT#FORUM "violations" away from the main talk page. (I learned something from reading the archives, anyway.) Gracenotes^T § 17:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Either that, or we can add a link to the WP:RD at the top of this page. But that isn't archived in a manner by which discussions can be easily selected. Gracenotes^T § 17:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless the content can be returned to the talk page. There is nothing more relevant to an article then gauging it's impact on the reader. If a large number of readers reject the "truth" then by definition the article must have flaws that need to be fixed. Algr 17:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of the threads on this page do directly correspond to the article at hand because they are the result of people claiming that the article itself is inaccurate. Thus the page reflects arguments providing proof that the information in the article is accurate and verified. In addition, deleting the page would result in the loss of the arguments for historial archive purposes, meaning that someone else asking the same questions would not have the thread for reference. Finally note that merging is not a good idea because the intent is to seperate out closely related discussions from the main talk page into this sub-talk page for the specific topic of discussing the accuracy of the article's main subject. Dugwiki 17:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, please. The alternative is much worse. --Lambiam ^Talk 18:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reasonable attempt to keep the primary talkpage for a featured article to a manageable size. Newyorkbrad 01:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Those proposing that 0.999... does not equal 1, wishing to make an argument against the article, generally do so with the idea that they are discussing the quality of the article rather than the subject. They are misguided, but more always show up. Leebo ^T/C 20:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it does sharpen the article itself by allowing for possible text in the answers to be ultimately integrated in the article. Calwatch 07:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Facilitates discussion of content. Ab e g92contribs 14:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. While the page does not accomplish much, I agree with Trovatore that the page is a convenient sink for such discussions that won't go away. I certainly don't want the Talk:0.999... page to keep being cluttered with pointless uneducated speculation. So either way is fine with me. — Loadmaster 17:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reason as above, many people come to Talk:0.999... willing to make a mathematical point for or against the subject. Talk:0.999.../Arguments allows the talk page to remain focused on writing the article, because such questions and points just won't go away. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subpage serves a huge purpose for the main talk page, and there is no obvious violation of WP:TALK. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 14:05, 11 May 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.