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 speedy keep. Aside from one lone merge, there is a unanimous consensus to keep - the only user advocating for deletion was the AFD nominator. Editors responding to this AFD called its subject: "famous and notable more than 180 years after its publication", "a landmark paper of mathematics/physics", "Classic encyclopedic material", "a notable essay", "classic essay", and "extraordinarily important and foundational paper". A WP:KEEP per WP:SNOW applies here as well, indeed, individuals have commented with both Speedy keep and with Snowball/Strong Keep. With regard to the lone comment suggesting "merge", this could be discussed further at the article's talk page, but it does not seem to have consensus at this point in time. -- Cirt (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC) -- Cirt (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An Essay on the Application of Mathematical Analysis to the Theories of Electricity and Magnetism[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I thought this fitted A1 for a sec there but I noticed that the subject is based on an essay. I can't see any evidence of notability here, and I can't find any news sources either. Minima c (talk) 06:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.0088 Green's famous essay (Nottingham, 1828), with which he introduced the potential function. --J. D. Redding 06:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC) [ps., This is a landmark essay.][reply]
Comment: "In 1828 Green had published privately An essay on the application of mathematical analysis to the theories of electricity and magnetism, a work that would be of great importance to William Thomson". Energy and empire: a biographical study of Lord Kelvin, Page 165 --J. D. Redding 06:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness. Even the most cursory of research, such as clicking on the first link in the article, would have indicated the importance of this essay. As it stands, however, this article is a good candidate for merge to George_Green. brenneman 06:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does need expansion. I will be doing that. Hopefully others will too. --J. D. Redding 07:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep it is well worth its own page Francis Bond (talk) 07:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here we have an article about an essay that was indisputably a major breakthough in advancing the understanding of the mathematics of electricity. This is a scientific paper which remains famous and notable more than 180 years after its publication. Of course this article should be kept, and then improved by editors who have more expertise than I in the history of science. Cullen328 (talk) 07:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep How someone can maintain that the essay that introducedGreen's theorem is not notable is simply beyond me. Keep, per being a landmark paper of mathematics/physics. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another one nominated for WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT Andy Dingley (talk) 12:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In its day, this treatise was the reference in the field. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep per AD William M. Connolley (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Classic encyclopedic material. Just needs copyediting for more formal style.Kudpung (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Green's Theorem. Per the article it was neglected for 18 years and only had a private printing of 51 copies. Thus it was not "the reference in the field, though many years later scientists credited Green for his neglected early insights. We do not need separate articles on every paper he wrote, in addition to articles on what it said or how it advanced science, or on the writer. Merger to the article on the article on Green would also be fine. Edison (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree your point about it not being a reference. I'd always understood it to be a work of mathematical brilliance, but before its time in terms of electrostatics and thus ignored for some years.

I wouldn't merge it to Green's Theorem though. Although this is mathematically appropriate, there's a significance for physics that's beyond this, and beyond what that article describes. The notion that a mathematical integration could be applied to a potential field in physics is revolutionary and changed (eventually) the whole way of thinking about fields. That, IMHO, is the real significance of this paper, even beyond the mathematical technique. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it appears to be a notable essay. Nergaal (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this classic essay. The nominator would do well to restrict himself to fields that he understands, like those on his talk page. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep without doubt. EEng (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball/Strong Keep An extraordinarily important and foundational paper. Ray^Talk 18:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the same Green that Green's theorem is named after — the same Green's theorem you learned when you were a second-year university student sucking at your mother's breast — and his interest in this topic may explain his interest in vector calculus. BTW, could you translate "A1" into English, or at least link to it? It is just not the case that all of us have so little to do in our lives that we know what that is. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll thank you to leave my mother's breasts out of this, sir. EEng (talk) 09:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSD#A1 Andy Dingley (talk) 10:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:CSD#A1 obviously no longer applies, and the only other stated reason for deletion is clearly false. This essay would be mentioned in essentially any textbook covering the history of calculus, or indeed any calculus textbook that includes historical notes. The essay itself is notable, so I don't think a merge is appropriate. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A1 never applied here. This article never failed to give sufficient context. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with you, but it doesn't seem to be worth arguing. Clearly someone thought it did, or nearly did, apply. My point is that it should be obvious now that it does not. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2010 (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.